Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Case Name: Caisip v People of the Philippines By: Bries

GR No. 28716 Topic: Ownership

Date: Nov. 18, 1970

Complainant Gloria Cabaleg is the wife of Marcelino Guevarra who cultivated a parcel of land known as Lot 105-A of
Hacienda Palico in Nasugbu, Batangas. Parcel of land used to be tenanted by her deceased father.
Hacienda Palico is owned by Roxas y Cia and administererd by Antonio Chuidian. The overseer of the hacienda is
Felix Caisip.
There have already been previous misunderstandings and litigation between the spouses Guevarra and the men of
Hacienda Palico.
Marcelino filed an action to the COAR seeking recognition as lawful tenant of Roxas y Cia. The Court declared it has
no jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as Guevarra is not a tenant of that land. It was appealed to the Supreme Court
but was dismissed.
Roxas y Cia filed an action against Guevarra for forcible entry, praying that Guevarra be ejected from the premises of
Lot No. 105-A. The court ordered Guevarra to vacated the lot and pay damages and accrued rentals. A writ of
execution was issued. The writ recites that the possession of the land was delivered to Roxas y Cia, thru Caisip and
Guevarra was given 20 days from June 6, 1959 within which to leave the premises.
June 15, 1959, some trouble occurred between Cabaleg and Caisip regarding the cutting of sugar cane on Lot 105-A
and entered again the following day and refused to be driven out by Caisip.
Cabaleg was charged with grave coercion and the crime of unjust vexation. CFI dismissed because it evidence of
record was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It further appears that due to the
tenacious attitude of Cabaleg to remain in the premises, Caisip sough the help of the Chief of police who advised him
to see Deputy Sheriff Aquino about the matter. Aquino informed Caisip that he could not act on the request without a
court order. Caisip then consulded Chuidian, the administrator who went to the chief of police and requested for the
detail of policemen in sitio Bote-bote. The chief of police assigned Rojales and Villadelrey.
Cabaleg was seen weeding the portion of Lot 105-A. Caisip approached her and bade her to leave but she refused.She
alleged that they had the right to stay and the crops belong to them. Caisip brought Rojales and Villadelrey and
forcibly dragged her towards a forested area where Caisip stood with a drawn gun.
Gloria shouted ina ko po! Ina ko po! and her neighbors Dulutan then Andino came and asked the policemen why
they were dragging her. They answered that they would take Gloria to town on the west. Andino pleaded to the
policemen to release her, saying that if the purpose was as stated by them, Gloria would willingly go with them. As she
was being dragged, her clothes were torn and she passed near the house of Rivera, the head of the tenant organization
she was affiliated and called out for him. He accompanied him to the municipal building and was turned over to the
policemen on duty. She was interogated then released and allowed to go home.
The Trial court and CA rendered the defense of the defendants unworthy of credence.
I) Whether or not their acts are justified under Article 429 of the NCC?
II) Whether or not in holding the 20 day period of grace given by the sheriff to vacate the lot was lawful?
Article 429 is not applicable in the case at bar for having been given 20 days within which to vacate Lot 105-A. They did not
invade or usurp said lot. She had merely remained in possession even though the hacienda owner may have become its co-
possessor. Appellants did not repel or prevent in actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation. Gloroia did not commit a
crime in the presence of a policeman because 1) said period was granted in the presence of the hacienda owners representative
Caisip, who by not objecting impliedly consented the act performed by the sheriff. 2) Gloria and her husband were allowed to
remain and in fact remained in possession of the premises perhaps together with the owner of the hacienda or Caisip. 3) The act
of removing the weeds from the ricefield was beneficial to the owner and to whomsoever the crops belonged and even if they
had not authorized it does not constitute a crime. 4) Although Gloria and her husband had been sentenced to vacate the land, the
judgement against them did not necessarily imply that they had no right of any kind whatsover regarding the crops.

It is clear that the appellants had by means of violence and without legal authority prevented the complainant from doing
something not prohibited by law, and compelled her to do something against her will whether it be right or wrong, thereby
taking the law to their hands, in violation of Art. 286 or RPC.
Doctrine Notes
Article 429 The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any
person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such
force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physcial invasion or usurpation of his property