KEMBAR78
Facts: Daclison V Baytion G.R. No. 219811 - April 6, 2016 Alluvium - Mendoza, J. - Guanco, E | PDF | Government Information | Justice
Scribd
Upload
117 views1 page

Facts: Daclison V Baytion G.R. No. 219811 - April 6, 2016 Alluvium - Mendoza, J. - Guanco, E

This case involved a dispute over possession of a portion of land between Rex Daclison and Eduardo Baytion. Baytion claimed he owned the land as a co-owner inherited from his parents, and leased portions to tenants. When one tenant's lease expired, Daclison took possession without Baytion's consent. The lower courts dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or failure to include all co-owners. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court erred in finding that improvements made outside the property boundary constituted improvements to Baytion's property. Any improvements must be made within the property boundaries according to property law.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
117 views1 page

Facts: Daclison V Baytion G.R. No. 219811 - April 6, 2016 Alluvium - Mendoza, J. - Guanco, E

This case involved a dispute over possession of a portion of land between Rex Daclison and Eduardo Baytion. Baytion claimed he owned the land as a co-owner inherited from his parents, and leased portions to tenants. When one tenant's lease expired, Daclison took possession without Baytion's consent. The lower courts dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or failure to include all co-owners. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court erred in finding that improvements made outside the property boundary constituted improvements to Baytion's property. Any improvements must be made within the property boundaries according to property law.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Daclison v Baytion

G.R. No. 219811 | April 6, 2016 Alluvium | Mendoza, J. | Guanco, E.

Facts
R e s p o n d e n t E d u a r d o   B a y t i o n   f i l e d   a   c o m p l a i n t   f o r   Forcible Entry and damages with
prayer for issuanceof preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner Rex Daclision. I n t h e
c o m p l a i n t , B a y t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t h e w a s a c o - owner of a parcel of land which he
and his sibling sinherited from his parents. As the administrator, he leased portions of the
property to third persons.

E r e c t e d   o n   t h e   s a i d   p r o p e r t y   w a s   a   o n e - s t o r e y building which was


divided into seven units or stalls. One of the stalls was leased to a certain Leonida DelaCruz who used
it for her business of selling rocks, pebbles and similar construction materials.

When Dela Cruz’s lease expired, Daclison and


o t h e r   p e r s o n s   a c t i n g   u n d e r   h e r   t o o k   p o s s e s s i o n   o f   t h e portion leased out to her without
the prior knowledge and consent of Baytion. D e s p i t e b o t h o r a l a n d w r i t t e n d e m a n d s b y
B a y t i o n f o r   Daclison to leave the premises, he refused to do so.

D a c l i s o n   a v e r r e d   t h a t sometime in 1978, Baytion least the subject portion to Antonio dela Cruz
10 or 15 years later, a stone walling, called ariprap, was erected at the creek lying beside
Baytion’s property, leaving a down-slopingarea.

T h e   M e T C d i s m i s s e d   t h e   c a s e o n   t h e   g r o u n d t h a t Baytion failed to include his


siblings or his co-owners, as plaintiffs in the case. Baytion appealed the case tothe RTC which ruled that
the MeTC lacked jurisdiction t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e f o r f a i l u r e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t t o constitute a
case of forcible entry. The CA concluded that Baytion, as co-owner of the subject property, hada better
right to possess.

ISSUE

W / N   t h e   C o u r t   a   q u o   g r a v e l y e r r e d u n d e r t h e l a w when it ruled that the second


property or land was an i m p r o v e m e n t   o n   t h e p r o p e r t y   o f   t h e   r e s p o n d e n t .

RULING

YES.  Article 445 provides:

Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of


another and thei m p r o v e m e n t s   o r   r e p a i r s madethereon belong to the
o w n e r o g the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles.
It must be noted that Article 445 uses theadverb “ t h e r e o n ” which is simply defined as“on the
thing that has been mentioned”.

Ino t h e r   w o r d s ,   t h e   s u p p o s e d   i m p r o v e m e n t m u s t   b e   m a d e ,   c o n s t r u c t e d   o r   i n t r
o d u c e d within or on the property and not outside.

You might also like