Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Republic of the Philippines

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 14
Lagawe, Ifugao

MARIANO HUMIDING, CIVIL CASE NO. 772


Plaintiff-Appellant,
For
-versus-
RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP
SPOUSES GABRIEL GANO AND POSSESSION OF LAND
& FELISA GANO
Defendants-Appellees,
X---------------------x

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Defendants-appellees Spouses Gabriel and Felisa Gano, the

following are the inaccuracies in plaintiff-appellant’s statement of facts:

“Plaintiff-appellant’s uncle Gano Kindipan is the owner of a parcel

of land located at Umalbong, Hingyon, Ifugao with an area of Eight

Hundred (800) square meters, more or less. Gano Kindipan had declared

the land for taxation purposes, introduced improvements and paid the

taxes thereon. Mr. Gano Kindipan allowed Bongayan Buyuccan-Binnalit

to construct her house on his property on the condition that she will

vacate the property if the former needs the same for his use or that of his

family. Bongayan Buyuccan-Binnalit indeed constructed a native house

occupying an area of about 60 square meters. When Bongayan

Buyuccan-Binnalit vacated the house, defendants-appellees occupied the

same. Before the death of Gano Kindipan, he donated the property to

plaintiff-appellant. Defendants-appellees vacated the native house which

prompted plaintiff-appellant to recover the area where the house was


constructed but defendants-appellees refused to remove the native house

claiming that the lot was their property.”

(Brief for plaintiff-appellant, pp. 1-2)

The above-cited statement of facts of plaintiff-appellant is not only

self-serving but that there is no proof whatsoever that plaintiff-appellant

or any of his predecessors, ever owned that parcel of land.

As far as possession is concerned, there is nothing in the records

of the case which will show that plaintiff-appellant, or any of his

predecessors-in-interest, ever possessed that parcel of land of herein

defendants-appellees. The contention therefore of plaintiff-appellant has

no leg to stand on.

ARGUMENTS

REFUTATION OF THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE LOWER COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE AREA

IN DISPUTE IS 217 SQUARE METERS.

The area of 217 square meters is the result of the ocular inspection

conducted on November 10, 2004. Both of he parties, the plaintiff and

the defendants were present. In fact, it was the parties themselves who

pinpointed to this Honorable Court the disputed property and

consequently agreed that the area in dispute is 217 square meters.

Plaintiff-appellant cannot now go back on his word and question the

same.

REFUTATION OF THE SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

II

THE LOWER COURT DID NOT ERR IN DECLARING THAT PLAINTIFF

FAILED TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR POSSESSION.


Gano Kindipan from whom plaintiff-appellant alleges to have

inherited his property never claimed ownership over the land in dispute.

In fact, he never possessed it. Plaintiff-appellant cannot come out now

and suddenly claim said land as he has no basis to do so.

REFUTATION OF THE THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

III

THE LOWER COURT DID NOT ERR IN DECLARING THAT THE

POSSESSION OF DEFENDANTS OVER THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY

STARTED SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL

Even the plaintiff-appellant does not know when defendant-

appellees started occupying the land in dispute. Such ignorance could

only be an indicia that plaintiff-appellant has no basis to his claim

because even in the complaint he filed, he never alleged his prior

possession or that of his uncle Gano Kindipan.

Regarding the issue raised on the ownership of the native house

which is up to now standing on the land in dispute, it is a very basic

principle in law that whoever owns the land definitely owns any structure

standing thereon. Said issue does not even merit any discussion.

REFUTATION OF THE FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

IV

THE LOWER COURT DID NOT ERR IN DECLARING THAT IT IS

ONLY PLAINTIFF WHO IS CLAIMING THAT THE LAND IN

CONTROVERSY IS PART OF GANO KINDIPAN’S PROPERTY.

Gano Kindipan during his lifetime never claimed ownership over

the land in dispute. Plaintiff-appellant’s claim therefore has no basis law

and in fact. A claim which originates out of thin air has no place in law.]
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court to DENY the appeal and affirm the lower

court’s decision declaring defendants-appellees the lawful owner and

possessors of the land in question.

Such other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Lagawe, Ifugao this 31st day of August 2006.

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
BY:

ATTY. MARIBAS B. LUBITON-HABAWEL


Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Public Attorney 111

Copy furnished:

Atty. Frederic Cabbigat


Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Poblacion East, Lagawe, Ifugao