Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Gulla v. Heirs of Labrador

    Uploaded by

    Romme Andrae Velasco
    The case involves a dispute over ownership of property located near the sea between the Labrador family and the Gulla spouses. The Gulla spouses claimed possession since 1984 but the property was declared under the Labradors for taxation. The lower courts ruled in favor of the Labradors, finding that the land was part of the public domain as a salvage zone and foreshore land requiring government permission. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that without a permit, the Gulla spouses have no possessory rights over the public land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gulla v. Heirs of Labrador

    Uploaded by

    Romme Andrae Velasco
    48 views2 pages
    The case involves a dispute over ownership of property located near the sea between the Labrador family and the Gulla spouses. The Gulla spouses claimed possession since 1984 but the property was declared under the Labradors for taxation. The lower courts ruled in favor of the Labradors, finding that the land was part of the public domain as a salvage zone and foreshore land requiring government permission. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that without a permit, the Gulla spouses have no possessory rights over the public land.

    Original Title

    (66) Gulla v. Heirs of Labrador

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves a dispute over ownership of property located near the sea between the Labrador family and the Gulla spouses. The Gulla spouses claimed possession since 1984 but the property was declared under the Labradors for taxation. The lower courts ruled in favor of the Labradors, finding that the land was part of the public domain as a salvage zone and foreshore land requiring government permission. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that without a permit, the Gulla spouses have no possessory rights over the public land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views2 pages

    Gulla v. Heirs of Labrador

    Uploaded by

    Romme Andrae Velasco
    The case involves a dispute over ownership of property located near the sea between the Labrador family and the Gulla spouses. The Gulla spouses claimed possession since 1984 but the property was declared under the Labradors for taxation. The lower courts ruled in favor of the Labradors, finding that the land was part of the public domain as a salvage zone and foreshore land requiring government permission. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that without a permit, the Gulla spouses have no possessory rights over the public land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

     

    No. 66
    Case Title: Spouses Pelagio Gulla and Perlita Gulla v. Heirs of Alejandro Labrador,
    represented by Alex Labrador (GR No. 149418, July 27, 2006)
    Ticker: 

    Facts

     Angel, Leonardo, Fe, Alex, and Roger Labrador filed a complaint against the spouses
    Pelagio and Perlita Gulla in RTC for accion publiciana. The complaint involved a couple of
    land property.
     According to the Labradors, the property was declared for taxation purposes under their
    names and the corresponding taxes were paid.
     In 1996, the spouses Gulla occupied a portion of the property fronting the Chine Sea, as well
    as the 562 sq meter lot within the salvage area. The spouses Gulla then constructed a house
    in the occupied property and fenced its perimeter.
     The Labradors pointed out that whatever alleged claims the spouses Gulla had on the
    property was acquired through deed of waiver of rights in favor of another “squatter” Bactad.
     Spouses Gulla claimed that they had been in possession of the property since 1984 and
    declared the property for taxation purposes under their names. They filed an application for
    miscellaneous sales patent which was certified as alienable and disposable land by the
    barangay captain.
     The MTC rendered judgment in favor of the Labradors, ordering the spouses Gulla to vacate
    the property. RTC and CA affirmed.

    Issue

     Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the possession of the lot.

    Ruling

    YES.
    The MTC, RTC and CA were one in ruling that the property is a part of the public domain, hence,
    beyond the commerce of men and not capable of registration. In fact the land is within the salvage
    zone fronting the China Sea as well as the property in the name of the respondents. The provision
    relied upon is Art. 440 of the NCC, which states that “The ownership of property gives the right by
    accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto,
    either naturally or artificially.” The provision, however, does not apply in this case, considering that
    the lot is a foreshore land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the
    ordinary flow of the tides.
    Such property belongs to the public domain and is not available for private ownership until formally
    declared by the government to be no longer needed for public use. Respondents thus have no
    possessory right over the property unless upon application, the government through the Bureau of
    Lands had granted them a permit.
    There is no question that no such permit was issued or granted in favor of respondents. This being
    the case, respondents have no cause of action to cause petitioners' eviction from the subject property.
    The real party-in-interest to file a complaint against petitioners for recovery of possession of the
    subject property and cause petitioner's eviction therefrom is the Republic of the Philippines, through
    the Office of the Solicitor General. Consequently, petitioners cannot be required to pay any rentals
    to respondents for their possession of the property.

    Note: Accession is not a mode of acquiring ownership

    Doctrine

     Doctrine 1 (only that relevant to the topic)


     Doctrine 2 (if any)

    Reminders
     We may be creative in the formulation of Tickers, we may use peculiar words/
    objects/ terms so we can remember the case more easily. 
     Feel free to not fill-out the ‘arguments’ portion if not relevant/ not applicable to the
    case designated. You may modify the table accordingly.
     Digests shall be arranged according to the order in the syllabus. Please follow
    the format for the file name: (1) Prudential Bank vs. Hon Panis.

    THANK YOU!! <3 

    You might also like