Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Ortiz V Kayanan

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    The document discusses a case regarding a land dispute between Bartolome Ortiz and others. Ortiz had possessed and cultivated the land since 1931 without filing for title. He protested the sales applications of others claiming the land, arguing he should have preference to purchase it as the actual occupant. The court held that Ortiz was entitled to a right of retention of the property until reimbursement for necessary and useful expenses he incurred improving the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Ortiz V Kayanan

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    51 views1 page
    The document discusses a case regarding a land dispute between Bartolome Ortiz and others. Ortiz had possessed and cultivated the land since 1931 without filing for title. He protested the sales applications of others claiming the land, arguing he should have preference to purchase it as the actual occupant. The court held that Ortiz was entitled to a right of retention of the property until reimbursement for necessary and useful expenses he incurred improving the land.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Ortiz v Kayanan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case regarding a land dispute between Bartolome Ortiz and others. Ortiz had possessed and cultivated the land since 1931 without filing for title. He protested the sales applications of others claiming the land, arguing he should have preference to purchase it as the actual occupant. The court held that Ortiz was entitled to a right of retention of the property until reimbursement for necessary and useful expenses he incurred improving the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    51 views1 page

    Ortiz V Kayanan

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    The document discusses a case regarding a land dispute between Bartolome Ortiz and others. Ortiz had possessed and cultivated the land since 1931 without filing for title. He protested the sales applications of others claiming the land, arguing he should have preference to purchase it as the actual occupant. The court held that Ortiz was entitled to a right of retention of the property until reimbursement for necessary and useful expenses he incurred improving the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Bartolome Ortiz v. Hon. Union C. Kayanan, G.R. No. L-32974.

    July 30, 1979

    “right of retention”

    Facts:

    The lot in controversy was formerly the subject of Homestead Application of Martin Dolorico II,
    where he named his uncle, Martin Dolorico I as his heir and successor in interest. Ortiz
    continued the cultivation and possession of the property, without however filing any application
    to acquire title thereon.

    Martin Dolorico I, in 1951, executed an affidavit relinquishing his rights over the property in
    favor of Quirino Comintan and Eleuterio Zamora, his grandson and son-in-law, respectively, and
    requested the Director of Lands to cancel the homestead application.

    Comintan and Zamora filed their respective sales applications Nos. 8433 and 9258 to which
    Ortiz filed his protest for on November 26, 1951 alleging that he should be given preference to
    purchase the lot inasmuch as he is the actual occupant and has been in continuous possession of
    the same since 1931.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Ortiz is entitled to right of retention.

    Held:

    Yes. A possessor in good faith has the right of retention of the property until he has been fully
    reimbursed for all the necessary and useful expenses made by him on the property. Its object is to
    guarantee the reimbursement for the expenses, such as those for the preservation of the property,
    or for the enhancement of its utility or productivity. It permits the actual possessor to remain in
    possession while he has not been reimbursed by the person who defeated him in the possession
    for those necessary expenses and useful improvements made by him on the thing possessed.

    You might also like