Back

[2/2] Dee vs CA

[2/2] CHUA TEE DEE, doing business under the name and style of PIONEER ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, versus COURT OF APPEALS and J.C. AGRICOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 135721 | 2004-05-27

ATTY. SABILLO:

It is already answered, Your Honor, there is no case.



ATTY. MOJICA:

So, there is no judgment.



ATTY. SABILLO:

There is no case.



ATTY. MOJICA:

If counsel and I stipulate that there is no judgment ... ?



ATTY. SABILLO:

Of course, there is no case.





COURT:

All right, no case, no judgment.[60]





Patently, then, the petitioner had not been disturbed in her legal possession of the property in derogation of Article 1654 of the New Civil Code. When the petitioner's representative saw that a portion of the leased premises was being fenced by the claimants, she had all the right to sue the intruders who had...