You are on page 1of 1

Villena vs.

Chavez
G.R. No. 148126 415 SCRA 33 , November 10, 2003

Ponente: Panganiban, J.:

Facts:
In a Complaint for Illegal Detainer with Damages, the respondents alleged that they are
the owners of four (4) parcels of land all issued by the Register of Deeds of Angeles City. These
four (4) parcels of land have been consolidated and subdivided into several blocks and lots, and
are now collectively designated as Bagong Silang Phase III-C. By mere permission and tolerance
of the respondents, the petitioners have occupied and erected their homes on four (4) of the said
lots.
Respondents have entered into an arrangement/agreement with Bagong Silang
Homeowners’ Association, Inc. that called for the payment of certain amounts as equity for
petitioners’ right to continue occupying the lots with the end in view of eventually becoming the
owners thereof, that pursuant to such agreement petitioners have paid certain amounts as
acquisition fees or as equity but later discontinued making payments in view of the non-issuance
of the so-called purchase commitment line/loan, and as a consequence, respondents are now
accusing petitioners for violating the agreement and on the basis of such breach of the agreement
by petitioners, demands for the latter to vacate the lots were made by respondents..
Issue: Whether or not unlawful detainer is the proper action to resolve the case

Ruling:
As correctly pleaded by petitioners, a similar case had been decided which ruled that the
proper action should have been a complaint for rescission or specific performance, not for illegal
detainer.
The appellate court ruled therein that there was an existing agreement or contract that
determined the nature of the parties’ relationship. When the CA Decision was elevated, this
Court denied the appeal for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the
appellate court.
When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it
will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the
same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.
Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should
be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may
be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.

You might also like