Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Usero Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Chris Ronnel Cabrito Catubao
    1. The case involved a dispute over ownership of a low-level strip of land situated between the lots of the petitioners and respondent. The petitioners claimed ownership based on their titles while the respondent claimed it was part of a creek. 2. The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners but the RTC and CA reversed, finding the strip was part of the creek and public domain. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the strip was part of the creek based on evidence presented, including certifications and photos. It also found the petitioners' titles did not sufficiently prove private ownership over the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Usero Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Chris Ronnel Cabrito Catubao
    102 views1 page
    1. The case involved a dispute over ownership of a low-level strip of land situated between the lots of the petitioners and respondent. The petitioners claimed ownership based on their titles while the respondent claimed it was part of a creek. 2. The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners but the RTC and CA reversed, finding the strip was part of the creek and public domain. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the strip was part of the creek based on evidence presented, including certifications and photos. It also found the petitioners' titles did not sufficiently prove private ownership over the land.

    Original Description:

    Civil Law Property Case Digest

    Original Title

    1. Usero vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved a dispute over ownership of a low-level strip of land situated between the lots of the petitioners and respondent. The petitioners claimed ownership based on their titles while the respondent claimed it was part of a creek. 2. The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners but the RTC and CA reversed, finding the strip was part of the creek and public domain. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the strip was part of the creek based on evidence presented, including certifications and photos. It also found the petitioners' titles did not sufficiently prove private ownership over the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    102 views1 page

    Usero Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Chris Ronnel Cabrito Catubao
    1. The case involved a dispute over ownership of a low-level strip of land situated between the lots of the petitioners and respondent. The petitioners claimed ownership based on their titles while the respondent claimed it was part of a creek. 2. The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners but the RTC and CA reversed, finding the strip was part of the creek and public domain. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the strip was part of the creek based on evidence presented, including certifications and photos. It also found the petitioners' titles did not sufficiently prove private ownership over the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1. Usero vs.

    Court of Appeals,
    GR No. 152115, January 26, 2005

    FACTS:

    Situated between the lots of the petitioners Samela and Usero and respondent Polinar is a low-
    level strip of land, with a stagnant body of water filled with floating water lilies; abutting and
    perpendicular to the lot of petitioner Samela, the lot of the Polinars and the low-level strip of
    land is the perimeter wall of Pilar Village Subdivision.

    Respondent Polinar erected a concrete wall and rip-rapped a portion of the low-level strip of land
    in order to avoid damages to its properties every time a storm or heavy rains occur where the
    water in the said strip of land rises and the strong current passing through it damages the house
    of the respondent.

    Claiming the ownership of the strip of land, petitioners each filed an action for forcible entry
    demanding the respondent to stop their construction and presented respective copies of Transfer
    of Certificate of Title. Respondent, on the other hand, presented in evidence their own TCT;
    certifications from barangay and district engineer on the existence of the creek where the
    respondent’s property is lying at the edge of it; and pictures of the subject strip of land filled with
    water lilies.

    MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. RTC reversed the decision of the MTC while CA affirmed
    the decision of the RTC.

    ISSUE:

    WON the disputed strip of land is a private property owned by the petitioners or part of the creek
    and therefore part of the public domain.

    HELD:

    The Court ruled that the disputed strip of land is part of the creek and forms part of the public
    domain.

    The assailed decisions are founded on sufficient evidence as presented by the respondent. In,
    contrast, petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that will prove their ownership over the
    subject strip of land. TCTs presented reveals that the description thereon are incomplete.

    The Court interpreted that the phrase “others of similar character” in Article 420 of the New
    Civil Code enumerating things that are property of public dominion, includes a creek which is a
    recess or an arm of a river. Being a public water, a creek cannot be registered under the Torrens
    System in the name of any individual.

    You might also like