oflodoR-Rodolfo

Municipality of Oas v. Roa

7 Phil. 20

Facts:

The Municipality brought the action for the recovery of a tract of land in the pueblo of Oas, claiming that it was a part of the public square of said town, while the Roa alleged that he was the owner of the property. The municipality claims ownership in view of a document stating that the land was bought in 1832 by the town’s parish priest; that erection of houses in said land is prohibited by order of the corregidor of Nueva Caceres; and that the repair of the building was prohibited upon the owner thereof, Jose Castillo. Said document was signed by Roa himself. When the building on the land was destroyed by typhoon on 13-14 May 1893, authorities of the town ordered the demolition thereof and declared that the owner of the building, Jose Castillo, had no right to reconstruct said building as the land did not belong to him. This resolution was also signed by Roa. Roa, on the other hand, claims that Juana Ricarte and Juana Riquiza sold the land to Juan Roco in 1876, and that on 17 December 1894, Jose Castillo sold it to Roa. No deed of conveyance from Juan Roco to Jose Castillo was presented by evidence, but with Castillo testifying that he bought the property by verbal agreement with Roco, his father-in-law. Roa, after his purchase in 1894, procured a possessory of information which was allowed by an order of the justice of the peace of Oas on the 19 January 1895, and recorded in the Registry of Property on the 28 March of the same year.

As early as 1852, the Municipality has constructed thereon buildings for the storage of property of the State, quarters for the cuadrilleros, and others of a like character. Roa was also able to construct a substantial building on the said after he “acquired” the property from Castillo.

Issue:

Whether or not the municipality owns the land.

Held:

The Supreme Court modified the judgment appealed from and declared the Municipality is the owner of the land and that it has the option of buying the building thereon, which is the property of the defendant, or of selling to him the land on which it stands. The Court also declared Municipality is entitled to recover the costs of both instances, and ordered the judgment entered after the expiration of 20 days and the records of the case remanded to the lower court for proper action.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Related posts:

1. Case Digest | Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo
2. Property Case Digest | Engreso v. De la Cruz
3. Case Digest | Mindanao Bus Company v. The City Assessor and the Board of Tax Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City
4. Case Digest | Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Company
5. Property Case Digest | Tan v. Arador Valdehueza and Rediculo Valdehueza
6. Property Case Digest | Lao v. Heirs of Alburo
7. Property Case Digest | Case v. Heirs of Tuason
8. Property Case Digest | Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals
9. Property Case Digest | Pangan v. Court of Appeals
10. Case Digest | Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. City of Pasig