8/13/2019 Case No. 74,75,76.Docx

1/3

Case 74

CITY OF MANILA VS. GERARDO GARCIA, et. Al.G.R. No. L-260! Fe"#$a#% 2&, &'67

Fa(ts) Plaintiff City of Manila is owner of parcels of land, forming one compact areabordering Kansas, Vermont and Singalong streets in Malate, Manila, and covered byTorrens Titles Nos. 4!"#, #!$%& and #!''% w(ere defendants entered )pon t(ese

premises wit(o)t plaintiff*s +nowledge and consent s(ortly after liberation from 4' to4!. T(ey b)ilt (o)ses of second-class materials, again wit(o)t plaintiff*s +nowledgeand consent, and wit(o)t t(e necessary b)ilding permits from t(e city. T(ere t(ey livedt(r) t(e years to t(e present.

T(e Mayor iss)ed a written permits, eac( labeled lease contract to occ)py specificareas in t(e property )pon conditions t(at defendants were c(arged nominal rentals.

/pifanio de los Santos /lementary Sc(ool came t(e need for e0pansion. 1n September4, ", plaintiff*s City /ngineer, p)rs)ant to t(e Mayor*s directive to clear s2)atters(o)ses on city property, gave eac( of defendants t(irty 3#$ days to vacate and remove

(is constr)ction or improvement on t(e premises. T(is was followed by t(e CityTreas)rer*s demand on eac( defendant, made in 5ebr)ary and Marc(, "&, for t(epayment of t(e amo)nt d)e by reason of t(e occ)pancy and to vacate in fifteen 3'days. 6efendants ref)sed. 7ence, t(is s)it to recover possession. 6efendants appealed.

Iss$e)8(et(er t(e trial co)rt properly fo)nd t(at t(e city needs t(e premises for sc(oop)rposes.

*el+)6efendants (ave absol)tely no rig(t to remain in t(e premises. T(e e0c)se t(att(ey (ave permits from t(e mayor is at best flimsy. T(e permits to occ)py arerecoverable on t(irty days* notice. T(ey (ave been as+ed to leave9 t(ey ref)sed to (eed6efendants are wrong of insisting t(at t(ey (ave ac2)ired t(e legal stat)s of tenants.T(ey entered t(e land, b)ilt (o)ses of second-class materials t(ereon wit(o)t t(e+nowledge and consent of t(e city. T(eir (omes were erected wit(o)t city permitsT(ese constr)ctions are illegal. :n a lang)age familiar to all, defendants are s2)atters;

S2)atting is )nlawf)l and no amo)nt of ac2)iescence on t(e part of t(e city officials willelevate it into a lawf)l act. :n principle, a compo)nd of illegal entry and official permit tostay is obno0io)s to o)r concept of proper official norm of cond)ct. nd t(is, for t(e reason t(at t(ey (inder and impair t(e )se of t(e

8/13/2019 Case No. 74,75,76.Docx

2/3

property for a badly needed sc(ool b)ilding, to t(e pre=)dice of t(e ed)cation of t(eyo)t( of t(e land.T(ey s(ac+le t(e (ands of t(e government and t()s obstr)ctperformance of its constit)tionally ordained obligation to establis( and maintain acomplete and ade2)ate system of p)blic ed)cation, and more, to "provide at least freepublic primary instruction. ?)dgment affirmed )nder review wit( costs againstdefendants-appellants.

Case 7

FLORENTINO GALLEGO VS. EOLE OF T*E *ILIINES Sa+ T*E CAG.R. No. L-&247 A$/$st !&, &'6!

Fa(ts) :n t(e morning of Marc( $, '!, appellant and (is companions were abo)t to(old a meeting of t(e ?e(ova(@s 8itnesses in front of t(e p)blic mar+et of Aamb)nao,:loilo. T(e c(ief of police, >velino Aarrosa, approac(ed appellant and in2)ired of (imw(et(er (e (ad a permit to (old said meeting. >s appellant co)ld not prod)ce any, t(ec(ief of police en=oined (im from so proceeding wit( t(e meeting b)t instead of desistingin obedience to t(e c(ief of police@s intimation, appellant, in a c(allenging vein,addressed (is followers, Bo) m)st contin)e t(at, we will see w(at t(ey can do for )s.D

8(ere)pon, t(e c(ief of police warned appellant if (e contin)ed wit( t(e meeting, (ewas to place (im )nder arrest. 7owever, appellant, disregarding t(e warning, contin)edt(e meeting for at least #$ min)tes more E w(ere)pon, (e was arrested and c(argedaccordingly.

Iss$e)81N t(e (olding of meeting wit(o)t a permit is illegal.

*el+)6isobedience on appellant@s part is self-evident from (is immediate reaction to t(ec(ief of police@ warning for (im to discontin)e t(e meeting E (is e0(orting (is followersBto contin)e t(e meeting as t(ey were prepared to see w(at can t(e police does fort(em.D >nd t(ese words were followed by t(e overt act of contin)ing t(e meeting for atleast #$ min)tes as s)fficiently establis(ed by t(e evidence. >nd it appears t(atcontrary to appellant@s contention, t(ere was an e0isting m)nicipal ordinance at t(e time31rdinance No. &, Series of '! providing for a previo)s permit for t(e (olding onreligio)s meeting in p)blic places.

T(e ordinance in t(is case is reasonable reg)lation of t(e )se of p)blic streets. T(ere isno claim t(at it gives t(e a)t(orities arbitrary power to grant or deny permit9 in factt(ere is no claim t(at petitioner was arbitrarily denied a permit. 6ecision of t(e Co)rt of>ppeals is affirmed, costs against petitioner.

Case 76OSE TA1ENA VS. CA

G.R. No. 42! Ma% 6, &''&

Fa(ts)T(e s)b=ect of t(e disp)te is a parcel of residential land consisting of abo)t 44$s2)are meters and sit)ated in Poblacion, Ma+ato, >+lan. :n !#, an action for recoveryof owners(ip t(ereof was filed in t(e Fegional Trial Co)rt of >+lan by t(e estate of>lfredo Tabernilla against ?ose Tab)ena, t(e (erein petitioner. >fter trial, =)dgment wasrendered in favor of t(e plaintiff and t(e defendant was re2)ired to vacate t(e disp)tedlot. T(e lot was sold by ?)an Peralta, ?r. sometime in &" to >lfredo Tabernilla w(ile t(e

8/13/2019 Case No. 74,75,76.Docx

3/3

two were in t(e Gnited States. Tabernilla ret)rned to t(e P(ilippines in #4, and6amasa Timtiman, acting )pon (er son ?)an*s instr)ction, conveyed t(e s)b=ect land toTabernilla. >t t(e same time, s(e re2)ested t(at s(e be allowed to stay t(ereon as s(e(ad been living t(ere all (er life. Tabernilla agreed provided s(e paid t(e realty ta0es ont(e property, w(ic( s(e promised to do, and did. S(e remained on t(e said land )ntil (erdeat(, following w(ic( t(e petitioner, (er son and (alf-brot(er of ?)an Peralta, ?r., too+possession t(ereof. T(e complaint was filed w(en demand was made )pon Tab)ena tos)rrender t(e property and (e ref)sed, claiming it as (is own.

T(e trial co)rt re=ected (is defense t(at (e was t(e absol)te owner of t(e lot, w(ic( (ein(erited from (is parents, w(o ac2)ired it even before 8orld 8ar :: and (ad been livingt(ereon since t(en and )ntil t(ey died. >lso disbelieved was (is contention t(at t(es)b=ect of t(e sale between Peralta and Tabernilla was a different piece of land plantedto cocon)t trees and bo)nded on t(ree sides by t(e Ma+ato Fiver. 7ence, t(is petition.

:ss)e; 81N petitioner is t(e absol)te owner of t(e s)b=ect lot.

7eld; F)le #& of t(e F)les of Co)rt provides in Section #' t(ereof as follows;

Sec. #'. Offer of evidence.HT(e co)rt s(all consider no evidence w(ic( (as notbeen formally offered. T(e p)rpose for w(ic( t(e evidence is offered m)st be specified.

T(e mere fact t(at a partic)lar doc)ment is mar+ed as an e0(ibit does not mean it (ast(ereby already been offered as part of t(e evidence of a party.

Private respondent, as plaintiff in t(e lower co)rt, failed to prove (is claim of owners(ipover t(e disp)ted property wit( evidence properly cogniIable )nder o)r ad=)dicativelaws.