CASE DIGEST: Celso Amarante, et. al. VS Court of Appeals, et. al.

Celso Amarante, et. al.

VS

Court of Appeals, et. al.

G.R. No. 76386 [October 26, 1987]

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Facts of the Case:

            On 20 August 1954, petitioners filed a complaint against respondents for the recovery of a twenty-hectare parcel of unregistered agricultural land situated in a remote, mountainous region of Negros Oriental. Allegedly, one of two pieces of real property was originally owned and cultivated by the late Malonis Infiel, an Aeta. Petitioners were Infiel’s grandchildren. The occupation and possession by Malonis Infiel, his children, and petitioners remained undisturbed until sometime in 1953 when respondent Gregorio Bolo, a common law husband of one of the granddaughters of Felix Malonis, caused the survey of the property, and proceeded to occupy part of it, claiming to have purchased the same on 11 April 1948 from respondent heirs of Felix Malonis. Petitioners contested the claim of respondent Bolo and asserted that what had been sold to him was only 5 hectares of the entire property and that the other 20 hectares was surreptitiously declared by respondent Bolo in the survey as property owned exclusively by Felix Malonis. Petitioners also contended that respondent Bolo, in his desire to consolidate possession and ownership of the entire property in his name, harassed petitioners by instituting a criminal case for qualified theft on 7 October 1953 against Eleuterio Amarante and petitioner Celso Amarante, and by threatening to liquidate the other petitioners if they persisted in their refusal to abandon the disputed property.

            The case was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court and such dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

            Whether or not the respondent Court erred in its decision.

Ruling of the Court:

            YES. The CA failed to take into account Article 24 of the Civil Code which states that “in all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap”, enjoins courts to be “vigilant for the protection of such party.” This same public policy is manifested in the recognition in our statute law and case law that members of our cultural or ethnic minority groups, such as Aetas, are commonly handicapped and vulnerable in dealing with other members of the community and, therefore, need and deserve particular protection. The Supreme Court decided that the interests of substantial justice will best be served by remanding this case to the trial court.

            The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court.

Share this:

Leave a Reply