G.R. No. 505 : April 8, 1902
FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE, general administrator of the Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Limited, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARTIN ASTUAR, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
The Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Limited, through its attorney, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Cavite for judicial possession of two large haciendas (San Isidro Labrador/Naic and Santa Cruz/Tanza) under Title XIII of the then Code of Civil Procedure. The court granted the petition and issued orders to the local justices of the peace to effect the possession. However, in both towns, numerous residents (over 200 in each) who were occupants of parts of the estates presented protests and objections to the proceedings, refusing to recognize the company’s claim. The justice of the peace of Naic, despite a subsequent court order to suspend proceedings, proceeded to give symbolic possession to the company’s representative on August 30, 1901. In view of the widespread opposition, the Court of First Instance declared the matter contentious. The company appealed this order.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Article 1800 of the Law of Civil Procedure is applicable to proceedings under Title XIII, such that an objection by occupants necessitates declaring the matter contentious.
2. Whether the opposition made by the occupants in this case was proper and sufficient.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court.
1. On the first issue: The Court ruled that Article 1800 is applicable. Possession requires actual occupation. Under the Civil Code, a mere occupant (the bare possessor) has a legally protected interest. If such an occupant objects to the delivery of possession in a summary proceeding (voluntary jurisdiction), the proceeding cannot proceed by mere consent and must be converted into a contentious suit. The occupant’s opposition, regardless of form, is sufficient to terminate the voluntary jurisdiction under Article 441 of the Civil Code and justify the court’s action under Article 1800 of the procedural law.
2. On the second issue: The Court held the opposition was sufficient. The petitioner had only demanded recognition from specific holders (a military commander and the local president). The other numerous tenants, to whom no direct demand was made, properly made their opposition known collectively to the justice of the peace and by formal written protest to the Court of First Instance. Their status as real occupants gave them the interest and right to object. Since a valid opposition was made concerning part of the estates, and the petitioner did not amend its petition to exclude the contested portions, the lower court correctly declared the entire matter contentious.
The appealed order was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
