G.R. No. L-5523 / February 10, 1911
Angustia Saldivar, et al. vs. The Municipality of Talisay

FACTS

The plaintiffs, the widow and children of the late Juarez, sought to recover possession of a house and lot owned by Juarez, which the defendant Municipality of Talisay had been occupying as its municipal building since 1889. The property was initially attached (“embargado”) by the provincial military-political governor in 1889 to secure payment for an alleged shortage of provincial funds charged against Juarez. When the municipal building was accidentally destroyed, the municipality moved into Juarez’s property. The municipality claimed it took possession under a written agreement wherein Juarez ceded the property in exchange for relief from part of the alleged shortage. However, the municipality failed to produce this document, and the evidence for its existence was deemed unsatisfactory. Juarez had been contesting the shortage charge administratively. The plaintiffs made a formal extrajudicial demand for possession no later than December 31, 1902, which was refused.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipality of Talisay lawfully acquired and retained possession of the property owned by Juarez (and now by his heirs).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The evidence did not substantiate the municipality’s claim of a written agreement with Juarez. The attachment (embargo) had long lost its force before the plaintiffs’ demand for possession. Therefore, the municipality’s occupation became illegal. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the property and to damages for its unlawful detention starting January 1, 1903. However, the record lacked sufficient evidence to fix the exact amount of damages (based on fair rental value). The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the damages, limited to the fair rental value from January 1, 1903, after allowing both parties to present evidence on this point. No costs were awarded in the Supreme Court.