8/9/2019 3. Santiago vs. Cruz, g.r. no. l-31919.docx

1/2

G.R. No. L-31919 March 24, 1930

VICENTE SANTIAGO, admii!"ra"or o# "h$ d$c$a!$d %&a 'i(o, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CRISTINA CR)*,Defendant-Appellant.

The plaintiff-appellant in his own behalf.

Guevara, Francisco and Recto for defendant-appellant.

OSTRAN',J.+

It appears from the record that one Juan Dizon died on July 20, 1927, in a housewhere he had lived for at least twenty years prior to his death. fter his death, apetition for the appointment of a special administrator was filed with the !ourt of "irstInstance of #izal. $he petition was opposed %y &arta Dizon, a close relative of thedeceased, %ut her opposition was overruled and on July 27, 1927, the plaintiff, 'icente(antia)o, was appointed special administrator. s such, he too* possession of theproperty left %y the deceased, includin) the house a%ove+mentioned. $wo monthslater, &arta Dizon entered the house and made it her a%ode, a)ainst the will of theplaintiff. $hree days later, !ristina !ruz, the herein defendant, also made the househer home on the invitation of &arta Dizon and remained there notwithstandin) theo%ections of the plaintiff.chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%lesvirtual lawli%rary

$rou%le immediately ensued, and the plaintiff asserts that the other persons livin) inthe house were insulted and annoyed to such an e-tent that they were compelled toleave. $o prevent further alle)ed depredations on the part of &arta and !ristina, theplaintiff placed padloc*s on most of the doors in the house, and on cto%er /, 1927,he o%tained an order from the !ourt of "irst Instance authorizin) him to employsheriffs or !onsta%ulary men to aid him in maintainin) order in the house. $hree dayslater, the court revo*ed said order %ut authorized the plaintiff to employ deputysheriffs at his own expense.chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%lesvirtual lawli%rary

$hereafter, &arta Dizon died, %ut !ristina !ruz still insisted on livin) in the house, andthe plaintiff %rou)ht the present action a)ainst her for forci%le entry and detainer. $heustice of the peace rendered ud)ment in favor of the defendant and a%solved herfrom the complaint. pon appeal to the !ourt of "irst Instance, that court rendered aud)ment orderin) the defendant to vacate the premises in uestion %ut a%solvin) her

from a claim presented %y the plaintiff in the same case for e-penses incurred %y himin employin) a deputy sheriff. $he total amount of the claim was 2,113.71. 4oth ofthe parties appealed to this court, the plaintiff for the denial of his claim of thee-penses and the defendant for orderin) her to vacate the house. chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%les virtual lawli%rary

In our opinion, neither appeal is well ta*en. $he plaintiff5s employment of deputysheriffs seems to have %een unnecessary, and we cannot hold that the court %elowerred in declinin) to allow him compensation for the resultin) e-penses.chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%lesvirtual lawli%rary

$he defendant+appellant claims that she has inherited an interest in the house and is atenant in common with the heirs of Juan Dizon and that she therefore cannot %ele)ally eected from said house. $his contention cannot %e successfully maintained.$he plaintiff held possession of the house %efore &arta Dizon and the defendant too*

possession. $hey acuired such possession %y force and a)ainst the will of theplaintiff, ta*in) the law in their own hands. In these circumstances, the defendantmust suffer the conseuences of her lawlessness whether she is a part owner of the

property or not. $he fact that she was invited %y &arta Dizon is immaterial6 &arta hadno )reater ri)ht than the defendant.chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%lesvirtual lawli%rary

$he appealed ud)ment is affirmed without costs. (o ordered.

Johnson, alcol!, Johns and "illa-Real, JJ., concur.

S$ara"$ Oiio!

VILLAMOR,J., dissentin) chanro%les virtual lawli%rary

I re)retfully dissent from the conclusion reached %y the maority in this case. chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%lesvirtual lawli%rary

It is to that part of the ud)ment appealed from which runs as follows that I cannot%rin) myself to a)ree

8a demandada ale)a en su contestacion, como defensa especial, ue la casa encuestion es de la propriedad de la comunidad de los Dizon, entre ellos la auidemandada, y ue, como tam%ien dio en sus declaraciones, si ella fue a vivir endicha casa fue por ha%erla invitado &arta Dizon. :ada de esto constituye defensafavora%le a la demandada, pues aun cuando ella tuviera derecho como uno de los

herederos so%re dicha finca, no ha%iendose hecho la particion de los %ienes deadospor el difunto Juan Dizon, nin)un derecho tenia a ocuparla, ni ella ni marta Dizon, poruien, se)un ale)a, fue invitada a vivir en la misma casa. demas, aunue lademandada viene a ser un pariente leano de Juan Dizon, se ha pro%ado por eldemandante ue no tenia derecho a heredar a auel finando.

In my opinion, the uestion raised in this appeal is whether a cotenant or coownermay oust another coowner %y a summary proceedin) instituted under section /0 ofthe !ode of !ivil rocedure.chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%les virtual lawli%rary

$he land in uestion ori)inally %elon)ed to "eliciana &artinez. ;hen she died theownership passed to her children , &aria,&a)dalena and Juan Dizon. $he estate of Juan Dizon is represented %y theadministrator, the plaintiff herein, while the defendant5s ri)ht comes from thedeceased &arta Dizon.chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%lesvirtual lawli%rary

$he heirs of "eliciana &artinez, a)reein) upon the partition of the estate, stipulated asfollows re)ardin) the land in uestion ?n relacion de @conA nuestra casa de hierro)alvanizado, camarin de piedra de tres %olas cada uno, camarin de coccion de azucar,camarin de azucar, et al terreno donde estan enclavadas estas propiedades y todosenseres, asi como los cara%aos de la%or estaran a nuetra usufructo comun de loshermanos, sin ue nadie de nosotros pueda prohi%ir dicho uso. chanro%les virtual lawli%rary

$he community of property %etween Juan Dizon and &arta Dizon %ein) admitted, and%oth decedents %ein) respectively represented %y the plaintiff and the defendant, I%elieve it is an error to hold that in the eectment proceedin)s filed %y the plaintiffa)ainst the defendant, the latter cannot alle)e her ri)ht to the property in uestion in

special defense6 for article B9C of the !ivil !ode e-pressly provides that eachparticipant may ma*e use of the thin) owned in common, provided that he use it forthe purpose for which it is adapted and in such a manner as not to preudice the

8/9/2019 3. Santiago vs. Cruz, g.r. no. l-31919.docx

2/2

interest of the community or prevent the other owners from ma*in) use of itaccordance with their ri)hts. chanro%lesvirtualawli%rarychanro%les virtual lawli%rary

$he ud)ment appealed from states that since the partition of the estate of thedeceased Juan Dizon has not yet %een made, she had no ri)ht to occupy it, nor had&arta Dizon, %y whom, she alle)es, she was invited to live in said house. 4ut thisloses si)ht of the fact that the defendant and her predecessor+in+interest, &artaDizon, do not pretend to a share in the estate of Juan Dizon. Juan Dizon and &artaDizon, %rother and sister, inherited from their father