Scribd
Upload
18 views

CASE No. 87 PIEDAD vs. GURIEZA, G.R. No. 207525, June 18, 2014 Facts

Bonifacio Piedad owned land in the Philippines that he left in the care of caretakers Sps Gurieza. Sps Gurieza eventually claimed ownership of the land and refused Piedad's demands to leave. Piedad filed an unlawful detainer case within one year. The court held that an unlawful detainer case was valid because Sps Gurieza's possession became unlawful after Piedad terminated their right to the land, Sps Gurieza remained in possession after this, and Piedad filed his complaint within one year. The court also held that the case could proceed even though Piedad was in Hawaii, as someone can possess land on an owner's behalf.

Uploaded by

Escanor Grandine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views

CASE No. 87 PIEDAD vs. GURIEZA, G.R. No. 207525, June 18, 2014 Facts

Bonifacio Piedad owned land in the Philippines that he left in the care of caretakers Sps Gurieza. Sps Gurieza eventually claimed ownership of the land and refused Piedad's demands to leave. Piedad filed an unlawful detainer case within one year. The court held that an unlawful detainer case was valid because Sps Gurieza's possession became unlawful after Piedad terminated their right to the land, Sps Gurieza remained in possession after this, and Piedad filed his complaint within one year. The court also held that the case could proceed even though Piedad was in Hawaii, as someone can possess land on an owner's behalf.

Uploaded by

Escanor Grandine
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE No.

87
PIEDAD vs. GURIEZA, G.R. No. 207525, June 18, 2014

Facts:
Bonifacio Piedad alleged that he is the absolute owner of a parcelof land in the Philippines. He put a
bungalow. Before leaving to Hawaii, he left several caretakers, the last being Sps Gurieza. The latter
declared the land for tax purposes and when Piedad learned of it, he immediately took necessary steps to
terminate their tolerated stay He demanded that they leave immediately. Instead of vacating, Sps Gurieza
defied the demand and asserted their ownership. Bonifacio made his final demand and filed his complaint
within one year period.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a case of unlawful detainer
Will the case prosper even if the plaintiff was in Hawaii

Held:
Yes. For an UD to prosper the defendant must allege that: (a) the defendant originally had lawful possession
of the property, either by virtue of a contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) eventually, the defendants
possession of the property became illegal or unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to defendant of the
expiration or the termination of the defendants right of possession; (c) thereafter, the defendant remained
in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and (d) within one (1) year
from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment. All the requisites have been complied with as described above

Yes. Consistent with Article 52420 of the Civil Code, it is well-settled that "[i]t is not necessary that the
owner of a parcel of land should himself occupy the property as someone in his name may perform the act.
In other words, the owner of real estate has possession, either when he himself is physically in occupation of
the property, or when another person who recognizes his rights as owner is in such occupancy.

You might also like