This case involves a land dispute between Mercedes Moralidad and the spouses Diosdado and Arlene Pernes. Moralidad executed a document granting the Pernes usufructuary rights over a portion of her land on which to build a house, for as long as they lived in harmony. However, relations later soured between the parties. Moralidad filed an ejectment suit, claiming the usufruct had ended due to the loss of cooperation. The MTCC ruled in Moralidad's favor, but higher courts disagreed. The Supreme Court ultimately found the usufruct had terminated due to continuing animosity, reversing the CA and reinstating the MTCC decision in Moralidad's
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
120 views2 pages
Moralidad V Sps Pernes
This case involves a land dispute between Mercedes Moralidad and the spouses Diosdado and Arlene Pernes. Moralidad executed a document granting the Pernes usufructuary rights over a portion of her land on which to build a house, for as long as they lived in harmony. However, relations later soured between the parties. Moralidad filed an ejectment suit, claiming the usufruct had ended due to the loss of cooperation. The MTCC ruled in Moralidad's favor, but higher courts disagreed. The Supreme Court ultimately found the usufruct had terminated due to continuing animosity, reversing the CA and reinstating the MTCC decision in Moralidad's
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2
117.
MORALIDAD v PARTIES INVOLVED: ISSUE: Whether or not respondents’ right to possess
PERNES Petitioner: Mercedes Moralidad, registered owner of the parcel of land in the land had been terminated Davao City Respondent: Sps. Diosdado and Arlene Pernes, (pamangkin of Mercedes) HELD: Yes.
HOW THE CASE STARTED The document executed by the petitioner
constitutes the title creating and sets forth the Petitioner worked in the USA until her retirement. She would spend conditions of the usufruct. her 2-month summer vacation in Mandug, Davao City, and would Petitioner had given the respondents the usually stay in the house of her niece, respondent Arlene Pernes. usufructuary rights over the portion of the land Respondent Arlene informed petitioner that Mandug was infested and the duration of which being dependent on by NPA rebels, thereafter petitioner sent money to buy a lot in how long respondents would like to occupy the Davao City proper where respondents could transfer and settle property. down The term or period of the usufruct originally The subject lot was initially for the respondents’ benefit but later specified provides only one of the bases for the petitioner wanted the property to also be available to any of her right of a usufructuary to hold and retain family members thus she executed a document which provides the possession of the thing given in usufruct. ff: The occurrence of any of the following: the loss of o Sps Pernes may build their house therein & stay as long as the atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or they like the cessation of harmonious relationship among o Anybody of Mercedes’ kins who wishes to stay on the real the family members constitutes a resolutory property should maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, condition which, by express wish of the petitioner, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with one another extinguishes the usufruct. o Anyone of Mercedes’ kins may enjoy the privilege to stay The continuing animosity between the petitioner therein and may avail the use thereof and respondents are enough factual bases to Petitioner came back to the Phil. to stay with respondents however consider the usufruct as having been terminated. in the course of time their relations turned sour o There were incidents with violent confrontations wherein FALLO: petitioner claimed that she sustained cuts and wounds Wherefore, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and PETITIONER FILED AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUIT AGAINST SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the decision of the MTCC is RESPONDENTS REINSTATED with MODIFICATION that all of respondents’ counterclaims are dismissed, including Alleged that she is the registered owner of the land on which their claims for reimbursement of useful and necessary respondents build their house; that she demanded respondents to expenses. vacate the premises but they refused Respondents contention: Petitioner had full knowledge and express consent of their stay in the property as stipulated in the document she executed
RULING OF THE MTCC: In favor of petitioner
Respondents’ continued possession of the premises become
unlawful upon the petitioner’s demand to vacate
RULING OF THE RTC: Reversed MTCC decision
Respondents’ possession of the property was not be mere
tolerance but rather by express consent RULING OF THE CA : Dismissed the case
The ejectment suit was premature: the issue of whether
respondents’ right to possess a portion of petitioner’s land had already expired or was terminated was not yet resolved What governs the right of the parties is the law on usufruct but petitioner failed to establish that respondents’ right to possess had already ceased
Bilflex Phil. Inc. Labor Union Et Al. V. Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation and Bilflex (Phils.), Inc. 511 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)