Bustos V. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

120784-85

Facts:
Paulino Fajardo died intestate on April 2, 1957.4 He had four (4) children, namely: Manuela,
Trinidad, Beatriz and Marcial, all surnamed Fajardo.

On September 30, 1964, the heirs executed an extra-judicial partition of the estate of Paulino
Fajardo. On the same date, Manuela sold her share to Moses G. Mendoza, husband of Beatriz by
deed of absolute sale. The description of the property reads as follows:

"A parcel of an irrigated riceland located in the barrio of San Isidro, Masantol, Pampanga.
Bounded on the North, by Paulino Fajardo; on the East, by Paulino Fajardo; on the South, by
Paulino Guinto. Containing an area of 5,253 sq. mts., more or less. Declared under Tax
Declaration No. 3029 in the sum of P710.00."

At the time of the sale, there was no cadastral survey in Masantol, Pampanga. Later, the cadastre
was conducted and the property involved in the partition case were specified as Lots 280, 283,
284, 1000-A and 1000-B. The share of Manuela, which was sold to Moses, includes Lot 284 of
the Masantol Cadastre and Lot 284 was subdivided into Lots 284-A and 284-B.

Trinidad was in physical possession of the land. She refused to surrender the land to her brother-
in-law Moses G. Mendoza, despite several demands.

During the hearing, Trinidad died, and her heirs parted with her estate,
including the lot claiming by Mendoza. Lot 284-B was then sold to Spouses Viray, herein private
respondents. The trial court ruled in favor of Mendoza. He then sold the subject land to Spouses
Bustos, herein petitioners, who were actually lessees of the husband of Trinidad on the land in
question. Since Spouses Bustos were in actual possession of the land, Spouses Viray filed an
action for unlawful detainer against the Spouses Bustos.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners could be ejected from what is now their own land.

Held:
No. Petitioners cannot be ejected from the subject land. The stay of execution is warranted by the
fact that petitioners are now legal owners of the land in question and are occupants thereof. To
execute the judgment by ejecting petitioners from the land that they owned would certainly result
in grave injustice.

The issue of possession was rendered moot when the court adjudicated ownership to the Spouses
Bustos by virtue of a valid deed of sale. Placing petitioners in possession of the land in question
is the necessary and logical consequence of the decision declaring them as the rightful owners of
the property.
Under Article 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of the thing, without other
limitations than those established by law. The owner has also a right of action against the holder
and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.

Under Article 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of the thing, without other
limitations than those established by law. The owner has also a right of action against the holder
and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.

Doctrine:
One of the essential attributes of ownership is possession. It follows that as owners of the subject
property, petitioners are entitled to possession of the same. “An owner who cannot exercise the
seven (7) “juses” or attributes of ownership–the right to possess (jus possidendi), to use and
enjoy (jus utendi), to abuse or consume (jus abutendi), to accessories (jus accesionis), to dispose
or alienate (jus disponendi), to recover or vindicate (jus vindicandi) and to the fruits–is a crippled
owner (jus fruendi).”