GR L 3823; (November, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑3823
November 23, 1907
—
FACTS
– Parties: Pedro P. Roxas & Carmen de Ayala de Roxas (plaintiffs‑appellees) vs. Maria de la Paz Mijares (defendant‑appellant).
– Claim: Recovery of possession of a 3.90 m × 2.17 m parcel of land situated between houses Nos. 82 and 88, Calle Dulumbayan, and of the old latrine of house No. 82, which the plaintiffs alleged they lawfully owned and possessed pursuant to a deed of November 27, 1894.
– Background: The deed indicated that the dividing wall between lots 4 and 6 belonged exclusively to Carmen de Ayala; she waived any claim over the wall and agreed to construct a supporting wall when the adjoining houses were demolished. The plaintiffs remained in peaceful possession of the parcel and latrine until May 9, 1905, when the defendant, without consent, erected a wall obstructing the entrance and usurped the parcel.
– Proceedings: The Justice of the Peace ruled for the plaintiffs (2 Mar 1906) ordering restitution of the parcel and latrine. The defendant appealed; the plaintiffs refiled in the Court of First Instance, amending their complaint to assert ownership and the breach of the 1894 agreement. The defendant asserted the work complied with the Manila Board of Health and sought dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs, as owners and lessees of the disputed parcel, were entitled to a statutory action for restitution of possession against the defendant’s unlawful occupation, notwithstanding that the property was leased at the time of the usurpation, and whether the lower court’s judgment should be affirmed.
RULING
– The Court held that ownership and possession rights may be vindicated by an action for restitution even when the property is under lease; the lessee’s peaceful enjoyment does not bar the owner from protecting his title.
– Citing Art. 1554, 1553, and 1559 of the Civil Code, the Court emphasized the owner’s duty to maintain the lessee’s peaceful enjoyment and his right to sue the usurper directly.
– The judgment of the Justice of the Peace restoring the parcel to the plaintiffs was affirmed; the portion concerning the latrine was omitted as the plaintiffs did not contest it.
– Costs were awarded against the appellant (defendant‑appellant).
Concurrences: Chief Justice Arellano, JJ. Johnson and Tracey, and Justice Williard (who noted the action proper under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure).