QR Link

Title
Dantis vs. Maghig, Jr.

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 191696 MENDOZA, J 10 Apr 2013

In a dispute over land ownership, the Supreme Court declares Rogelio as the
true owner, ruling that Julio, Jr. failed to prove the existence of a valid
contract of sale and exhibited inconsistencies in his testimony.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191696)

v0.1-beta

Parties and Claims

The petitioner in the case is Rogelio Dantis, who claims to be the true owner of a
parcel of land in Bulacan, Philippines.

The respondent is Julio Maghinang, Jr., who asserts his ownership based on an
alleged oral contract of sale.

Complaint and Allegations

Rogelio Dantis !led a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession
with damages against Julio Maghinang, Jr. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Rogelio claimed that he acquired ownership of the land through a deed of

extrajudicial partition of his deceased father's estate.

He alleged that Julio, Jr. occupied a portion of the land without any right and
refused to vacate despite demands.

Rogelio sought a judgment declaring him as the true owner of the land and
ordering Julio, Jr. to surrender possession and pay rentals and attorney's fees.

Denial and Counterclaim

 Julio, Jr. denied the allegations and claimed that he was the actual owner of the
portion of the land he was occupying.

He argued that his father bought the land from Rogelio's parents and that he had
been in possession of the property for almost thirty years.

Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

After hearing the testimonies of the parties and examining the evidence, the RTC
ruled in favor of Rogelio, declaring him as the true owner of the entire parcel of
land.

The RTC did not give probative value to the documents presented by Julio, Jr. as
evidence of the oral contract of sale.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA)

Julio, Jr. appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA reversed the RTC's decision and held that the documents presented by
Julio, Jr. were su"cient evidence of the oral contract of sale.

The CA declared Julio, Jr. and his predecessors-in-interest as the owners of the
portion of the land where Julio, Jr.'s residence was located.

The CA ordered Rogelio to reconvey the portion to Julio, Jr.'s heirs.

Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court

Rogelio !led a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court,
arguing that the CA erred in its decision.

T... continue reading

Case Story (G.R. No. 191696)

v0.1-beta

1. The RTC summarized the testimonies of Rogelio and Julio, Jr. as follows:

Rogelio testi!ed that he inherited the land through an extrajudicial partition of

the estate of Emilio Dantis and that he had not been in physical possession of the
premises.

Julio, Jr. testi!ed that he did not have title to the property and that he had not
paid realty taxes or rent for the portion he was occupying.

19. On March 2, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Rogelio as the true
owner of the entire 5,657-square meter lot and ordering Julio, Jr. to vacate the
 property.

20. Julio, Jr. !led a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC.

21. Julio, Jr. appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

22. On January 25, 2010, the CA reversed the RTC decision and declared the heirs of
Julio Maghinang, Jr. as the owners of the 352-square meter portion of the lot.

23. T...

Unlock Summary and Story

Get comprehensive understanding of the case