(3) Villena vs Sps Chavez

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

nice

Citation preview

VillenavsSpouses ChavezG.R. No. 148126. November 10, 2003Facts:This is a petitioned case that was already decided by the Court of Appeals (CA), this case was said to be stare decisis which meanthat a judgment reached in one case should be applied to successive ones in which the facts are substantially identical, even though the parties may be different. Like cases ought to be decided alike.According to the facts of the CA the respondents owned four parcels of land subdivided into several blocks. By mere permission of the respondents the petitioners have occupied and erected their homes, the respondent allowed it but they should, in consideration pay in certain amount as equityThe petitioners failed to pay the equity from the respondent so the respondent in return wrote them a letter that they need to vacate the premises in a span of 30 days, but in regards to that the petioners refused to vacate and remove their houses.The petitioners said that the respondent does not have power to institute such orders from the conflicted properties because the equities that they must pay is in accordance of National Home Mortgage Finance Corp.(NHMFC) They also claim that they paid already the said equity however they were not given any receipts and copy of their contractThe petitioners also claim that they are qualified beneficiaries under the RA no. 7279 known as the Urban Development and Housing Act and adding that they were builder of good faithCA ruled that the petitioners entered with an agreement of equity with the respondent , so in return they must pay amortization or they will face eviction.Issue:Whether or not, the decision of the CA needed to be redefine by the SC.

Rulling:It is ruled that in the findings they the petitioners were in binding contract with the respondent in regarding with paying their equity and by not paying it they has lost their right to occupy.The CA rulling in this case is informative and straight to the point. The petition to review was granted, the decision of the CA was overturned and the decision of the RTC and MTC was reinstated