Scribd
Upload
332 views

Yusingco Vs Busilak

The heirs of Alfonso Yusingco filed cases to recover possession of land they claimed to possess before World War II. After winning those cases, they found Busilak et al. occupying the land without permission. The municipal trial court ordered Busilak et al. to vacate based on the previous cases establishing Yusingco's ownership. However, the Court of Appeals ruled the previous cases only bound the original parties, not Busilak et al. The Supreme Court held that while an action to recover land is an in personam action, trespassers like Busilak et al. can be bound by prior judgments establishing another's ownership. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in finding Busilak et

Uploaded by

Jelaine Añides
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
332 views

Yusingco Vs Busilak

The heirs of Alfonso Yusingco filed cases to recover possession of land they claimed to possess before World War II. After winning those cases, they found Busilak et al. occupying the land without permission. The municipal trial court ordered Busilak et al. to vacate based on the previous cases establishing Yusingco's ownership. However, the Court of Appeals ruled the previous cases only bound the original parties, not Busilak et al. The Supreme Court held that while an action to recover land is an in personam action, trespassers like Busilak et al. can be bound by prior judgments establishing another's ownership. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in finding Busilak et

Uploaded by

Jelaine Añides
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/ 2

Heirs of Yusingco vs Busilak et al.

Facts: The heirs of Alfonso Yusingco filed five separate (5) Complaints for accion publiciana and/or
recovery of possession against Busilak et al. before the MTCC of Surigao City. They allege that they are
possessors of the land at the start of the World War II. After the war, they noticed that some other
persons were occupying the land which prompted them to file separate cases for accion reivindicatoria
and recovery of possession against these persons. During the pendency of the case, Busilak et al.
entered different portions of the same properties and occupied them without the knowledge and
consent of Yusingco. They merely allowed the occupation of Busilak et al by mere tolerance.
Subsequently, the cases which they earlier filed were decided in their favor and they were declared the
owners of the subject properties; thereafter, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate the said
properties, but the latter refused.

The MTCC of Surigao City rendered an order in favor of Yusingco and ordered Busilak et al. to vacate the
property. It cited the previously decided case of accion reivindicatoria decided by CFI of Surigao del
Norte declaring Yusingco as the true and lawful co-owners of the subject properties.

Busilak et al. went to CA . The CA ruled that since the legal possession of Yusingco was based on a
previously decided accion reivindicatoria, which is a suit in personam, the judgments in the said case
binds only the parties properly impleaded therein. Since Busilak et al. were not parties to the said action,
the CA concluded that they could not be bound by the judgments declaring Yusingco as owners of the
disputed properties.

Issue: WON an accion reivindicatoria is an action in personam which does not bind Busilak et al? NO

Held: Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is, thus, an action whereby the plaintiff alleges
ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.x It is a suit to recover
possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership.

It is settled that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in


personam. It is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only "between the parties and their
successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action." An action to recover a
parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only
although it concerns the right to a tangible thing.17 Any judgment therein is binding only upon the
parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard.18 However, this rule
admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit19
where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently
occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the
permission of the defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of
the family, relative or privy of the defendant.

In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and conclusions of the
MTCC, as affirmed by the RTC, that respondents are mere intruders or trespassers who do not have a
right to possess the subject lots. Therefore, the CA erred in ruling that the judgments of the RTC (in Civil
Case No. 1645) and the CA (in CA-GR. CV No. 66508-R) on the suit for accion reivindicatoria filed by
petitioners against persons other than herein respondents are not binding upon the latter. Respondents,
being trespassers on the subject lots are bound by the said judgments, which find petitioners to be
entitled to the possession of the subject lots as owners thereof.

You might also like