B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Caisip v. People Caisip v. People
I. Recit-ready summary
Gloria Cabalag and her husband cultivated a parcel of land known as
Lot 105-A of Hacienda Palico. The said parcel of land used to be tenanted
by the deceased father of Gloria. Hacienda Palico is owned by Roxas Cia.
and administered by Antonio Chuidian. The overseer of the said hacienda is
Felix Caisip.
On May 17, 1958, Roxas y Cia. filed an action against Marcelino
Guevarra in the justice of the peace court of Nasugbu, Batangas, for forcible
entry, praying therein that Guevarra be ejected from the premises of Lot No.
105-A. A writ of execution was issued and recited among other things that
the possession of the land was delivered to the Roxas y Cia. thru Felix
Caisip, the overseer, and Guevarra was given twenty days from June 6,
1959 within which to leave the premises.
On June 17, 1959., Gloria Cabalag was seen weeding the portion of
Lot 105-A which was a ricefield. Caisip approached her and bade her to
leave, but she refused to do so, alleging that she and her husband had the
right to stay there and that the crops thereon belong to them. Caisip went to
his co-defendants, Sgt. Rojales and Cpl. Villadelrey, both of the local
police. They dragged her to the municipall building and turned over to the
police on duty.
Whether or not the acts of Caisip and the police are justified under Art. 429
of the NCC ? NO.
Art. 429 is obviously inapplicable to the case at bar, for, having been
given 20 days from June 6, 1959, within which to vacate Lot 105-A, Gloria
did not, on June 17, 1959 - or within said period - invade or usurp said lot.
She had merely remained in possession thereof, even though the hacienda
owner may have become its co-possessor. Caisip et.al did not "repel or
prevent in actual or threatened ... physical invasion or usurpation."
II. Facts of the case
Gloria Cabalag is the wife of Marcelino Guevarra who cultivated a
parcel of land known as Lot 105-A of Hacienda Palico situated in sitio
Bote-bote, barrio Tampisao, Nasugbu, Batangas. The said parcel of land
G.R. NO: L-28716
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Ownership
November 18, 1970
used to be tenanted by the deceased father of Gloria. Hacienda Palico is
owned by Roxas Cia. and administered by Antonio Chuidian. The overseer
of the said hacienda is Felix Caisip.
On May 17, 1958, Roxas y Cia. filed an action against Marcelino
Guevarra in the justice of the peace court of Nasugbu, Batangas, for forcible
entry, praying therein that Guevarra be ejected from the premises of Lot No.
105-A. After due hearing, the said Court in a decision dated May 2, 1959
ordered Guevarra to vacate the lot and to pay damages and accrued rentals.
A writ of execution was issued and recited among other things that the
possession of the land was delivered to the Roxas y Cia. thru Felix Caisip,
the overseer, and Guevarra was given twenty days from June 6, 1959
within which to leave the premises.
On June 15, 1959, some trouble occurred between Gloria and Caisip
regarding the cutting of sugar cane on Lot 105-A. The following day June
16, 1959, Gloria allegedly again entered the premises of Lot 105-A and
refused to be driven out by Felix Caisip. Due to the aforementioned
incidents, Gloria Cabalag was charged in the justice of the peace court of
Nasugbu, Batangas, with grave coercion for the incident of June 15, 1959,
and with the crime of unjust vexation for the incident of June 16, 1959.
Both cases were filed on June 25, 1959.
On June 17, 1959, at about 5:00 p.m., Gloria Cabalag was seen
weeding the portion of Lot 105-A which was a ricefield. Caisip approached
her and bade her to leave, but she refused to do so, alleging that she and her
husband had the right to stay there and that the crops thereon belong to
them. She having stuck to this attitude, even when he threatened to call the
police, Caisip went to his co-defendants, Sgt. Rojales and Cpl. Villadelrey,
both of the local police, who were some distance away, and brought them
with him. Rojales told Gloria, who was then in a squatting position, to stop
weeding. As Gloria insisted on her right to stay in said lot, Rojales grabbed
her right hand and, twisting the same, wrested therefrom the trowel she was
holding. Thereupon, Villadelrey held her left hand and, together with
Rojales, forcibly dragged her northward - towards a forested area, where
there was a banana plantation - as Caisip stood nearby, with a drawn gun.
Both the trial court and Court of Appeals rendered the defense
unworthy of credence.
PONENTE: Concepcion, J
DIGEST MAKER: Ian
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED November 18, 1970
Caisip v. People Caisip v. People

III. Issue/s planted thereon, had no rights, of any kind whatsoever, in or to the standing
1. Whether or not the acts of Caisip and the police are justified under crops, inasmuch as "necessary expenses shall be refunded to every
Art. 429 of the NCC ? NO. possessor," and the cost of cultivation, production and upkeep has been held
to partake of the nature of necessary expenses.
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis

Art. 429 of Civil Code, reads: V. Disposition

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 physical invasion
or usurpation of his property.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs against the defendants-appellants. It is so ordered.
VI. Notes

It is obviously inapplicable to the case at bar, for, having been given

20 days from June 6, 1959, within which to vacate Lot 105-A, Gloria did
not, on June 17, 1959 - or within said period - invade or usurp said lot. She
had merely remained in possession thereof, even though the hacienda
owner may have become its co-possessor. Caisip et.al did not "repel or
prevent in actual or threatened ... physical invasion or usurpation." They
expelled Gloria from a property of which she and her husband were in
possession even before the action for forcible entry was filed against them
on May 17, 1958, despite the fact that the Sheriff had explicitly authorized
them to stay in said property up to June 26, 1959, and had expressed the
view that he could not oust them therefrom on June 17, 1959, without a
judicial order therefor.

Caisip claimed the sheriff had no authority to grant the 20-day period.
SC said it is manifestly untenable, because: (1) said period was granted in
the presence of the hacienda owner's representative, Caisip, who, by not
objecting thereto, had impliedly consented to or ratified the act performed
by the sheriff; (2) Gloria and her husband were thereby allowed to remain,
and had, in fact, remained, in possession of the premises, perhaps together
with the owner of the hacienda or his representative, Caisip; (3) the act of
removing weeds from the ricefield was beneficial to its owner and to
whomsoever the crops belonged, and, even if they had not authorized it,
does not constitute a criminal offense; and (4) although Gloria and her
husband had been sentenced to vacate the land, the judgment against them
did not necessarily imply that they, as the parties who had tilled it and

G.R. NO: L-28716 PONENTE: Concepcion, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Ownership DIGEST MAKER: Ian