Scribd
Upload
114 views1 page

Corinthian Gardens Boundary Dispute Ruling

The court ruled that it cannot take judicial notice of rental values without supporting evidence. The case involved a property dispute between neighboring landowners in Corinthian Gardens Subdivision. The Cuasos' home construction encroached on the adjacent property of the Tanjangcos after the builder and surveyor made errors. While the Cuasos argued Corinthian was partly at fault for approving the plans, the court found Corinthian could not be held liable without evidence that it failed to conduct proper inspections during construction. The court also affirmed that rent was owed to the Tanjangcos for being deprived of their property's use, based on evidence presented below rather than just judicial notice of rental increases.

Uploaded by

Yappi Nani
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
114 views1 page

Corinthian Gardens Boundary Dispute Ruling

The court ruled that it cannot take judicial notice of rental values without supporting evidence. The case involved a property dispute between neighboring landowners in Corinthian Gardens Subdivision. The Cuasos' home construction encroached on the adjacent property of the Tanjangcos after the builder and surveyor made errors. While the Cuasos argued Corinthian was partly at fault for approving the plans, the court found Corinthian could not be held liable without evidence that it failed to conduct proper inspections during construction. The court also affirmed that rent was owed to the Tanjangcos for being deprived of their property's use, based on evidence presented below rather than just judicial notice of rental increases.

Uploaded by

Yappi Nani
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

CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC.

, Petitioner, -versus - SPOUSES REYNALDO


and
MARIA LUISA TANJANGCO, and SPOUSES FRANK and TERESITA CUASO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 160795, THIRD DIVISION, June 27, 2008, NACHURA, J.
The court may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Before
taking such judicial notice, the court must "allow the parties to be heard thereon." Hence, there can be
no judicial notice on the rental value of the premises in question without supporting evidence.
FACTS:
Spouses Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco (the Tanjangcos) own Lots 68 and 69 covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 2422454 and 2829615 respectively, located at Corinthian
Gardens Subdivision, Quezon City, which is managed by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association,
Inc. (Corinthian). On the other hand, respondents-spouses Frank and Teresita Cuaso (the Cuasos)
own Lot 65 which is adjacent to the Tanjangcos’ lots.
Before the Cuasos constructed their house, it was surveyed by De Dios Realty the surveyor as per
recommendation of the petitioner association. Later on, Corinthian Gardens Association approved
the plans made by the builder CB Paras Construction.
Corinthian conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to determine compliance with the
approved plans pursuant to the Manual of Rules and Regulations of Corinthian (MRRC).
Unfortunately, after construction, the perimeter fence of the Cuasos’ encroached upon Tanjancos’
lot.
The Cuasos ascribed negligence to C.B. Paraz for its failure to ascertain the proper specifications of
their house, and to Engr. De Dios for his failure to undertake an accurate relocation survey, thereby,
exposing them to litigation. The Cuasos also faulted Corinthian for approving their relocation
survey
and building plans without verifying their accuracy and in making representations as to Engr. De
Dios' integrity and competence. The Cuasos alleged that had Corinthian exercised diligence in
performing its duty, they would not have been involved in a boundary dispute with the Tanjangcos.
Thus, the Cuasos opined that Corinthian should also be held answerable for any damages that they
might incur as a result of such construction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court may take judicial notice over general increase in the rentals of real estate.
RULING: NO.
Truly, mere judicial notice is inadequate, because evidence is required for a court to determine the
proper rental value. But contrary to Corinthian's arguments, both the RTC and the CA found that
indeed rent was due the Tanjangcos because they were deprived of possession and use of their
property. This uniform factual finding of the RTC and the CA was based on the evidence presented
below. Moreover, in Spouses Catungal v. Hao, 43 we considered the increase in the award of rentals
as reasonable given the particular circumstances of each case. We noted therein that the
respondent
denied the petitioners the benefits, including rightful possession, of their property for almost a
decade.

You might also like