Scribd
Upload
107 views1 page

Precy Bunyi and Mila Bunyi V. Fe S. Factor G.R. No. 172547, June 30, 2009

This case involved a dispute over possession of a property owned by the Factor family in Las Pinas City. Fe S. Factor claimed the right to possess the property after the death of her sister Gloria, who previously administered the Factor compound. The petitioners, Precy and Mila Bunyi, forcibly occupied the property after the death of Precy's husband Ruben Labao, who was married to Gloria. While the petitioners questioned Fe's claim of ownership, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fe, finding that the respondents' predecessors had prior possession and the petitioners entered the property without consent, depriving the rightful possessors of the property. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

JAN
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
107 views1 page

Precy Bunyi and Mila Bunyi V. Fe S. Factor G.R. No. 172547, June 30, 2009

This case involved a dispute over possession of a property owned by the Factor family in Las Pinas City. Fe S. Factor claimed the right to possess the property after the death of her sister Gloria, who previously administered the Factor compound. The petitioners, Precy and Mila Bunyi, forcibly occupied the property after the death of Precy's husband Ruben Labao, who was married to Gloria. While the petitioners questioned Fe's claim of ownership, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fe, finding that the respondents' predecessors had prior possession and the petitioners entered the property without consent, depriving the rightful possessors of the property. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

JAN
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/ 1

PRECY BUNYI and MILA BUNYI v. FE S.

FACTOR

G.R. No. 172547, June 30, 2009

FACTS:

Fe S. Factor is one of the co-owners of a piece of land in Las Pinas City owned by her grandparents. Her
father Enrique caused the construction of several houses in the compound. When Enrique Factor died the
administration of the Factor compound was transferred to respondent’s sister, Gloria Factor-Labao who
lives with her husband Ruben Labao in Tipaz, Taguig but visited and sometimes stayed in the rest house
to collect rentals and oversee the Factor compound. Gloria died in 2001 and the administration of the
Factor compound passed on to respondent Fe as coowner of the property. Ruben Labao married
petitioner Precy Bunyi. On November 10, 2002, Ruben Labao died. At about this time, respondent
discovered that petitioners forcibly opened the doors of the rest house and stole all the personal
properties owned by the Factor family and then audaciously occupied the premises. Respondent alleged
that petitioners unlawfully deprived her and the Factor family of the subject propertys lawful use and
possession. Respondent filed a complaint for forcible entry against herein petitioners. Petitioners,
questioned Fes claim of ownership of the subject property and the alleged prior ownership of her father
Enrique Factor.

ISSUE: Who has better right of physical and material possession of the subject property.

HELD: SC found in favor of the respondent. In ejectment cases, the only issue for resolution is who is
entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of
ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants. While petitioners claim that respondent never physically
occupied the subject property, they failed to prove that they had prior possession of the subject property.
The right of respondents predecessors over the subject property is more than sufficient to uphold
respondents right to possession over the same. The words by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth include every situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully enter upon real
property and exclude another, who has had prior possession therefrom. So when petitioners entered said
property without the consent and permission of the respondent and the other coowners, the latter were
deprived of its possession.

Petition is DENIED.

You might also like