Scribd
Upload
166 views2 pages

Chan vs. Iglesia ni Cristo: Treasure Dispute

Chan owned a gas station next to an Iglesia ni Cristo chapel. He hired Yoro to dig tunnels ostensibly to install septic tanks, but the tunnels intruded on the chapel's land. Iglesia ni Cristo sued Chan. The courts found that the real intent was to search for hidden treasure based on the agreement to divide any treasures found. Chan and Yoro were found jointly and solidarily liable as joint tortfeasors for damages to the chapel.

Uploaded by

Trisha Buca
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
166 views2 pages

Chan vs. Iglesia ni Cristo: Treasure Dispute

Chan owned a gas station next to an Iglesia ni Cristo chapel. He hired Yoro to dig tunnels ostensibly to install septic tanks, but the tunnels intruded on the chapel's land. Iglesia ni Cristo sued Chan. The courts found that the real intent was to search for hidden treasure based on the agreement to divide any treasures found. Chan and Yoro were found jointly and solidarily liable as joint tortfeasors for damages to the chapel.

Uploaded by

Trisha Buca
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

Chan, Jr. vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, Inc., G.R. No.

160283, October 14, 2005

I. Facts
The Petitioner John Chan owned a Gasoline Station that is bordering the Chapel of
the Respondent Iglesia ni Cristo. The Gas station needed an an additional sewerage
and septic tanks for the washroom. Hence, Chan procured the services of Dioscoro
Yor, a retired general of AFP as a construction contractor. They entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). In was stated in the MOA that Yoro is to
undertake the digging of the parcel of land owned by Chan for the exclusive purpose
of having a septic tanks. Further, the MOA stipulates that the division of shares of
the parties in event that valuable objects are found on the property and those found
outside the property during the digging.

After some time, Chan was informed by the members of INC that the digging
traversed and penetrated a portion of their land. The foundation of the chapel was
affected as a tunnel was dug directly under it to the damage and prejudice of the
INC.

Hence, INC filed a compliant against Chan. Chan filed an Answer with Third-Party
Complaint impleading Yoro.

RTC: Held that the digging were not intended for the construction of sewerage and
septic tanks but were made to construct tunnels to find hidden treasure. Chan and
Yoro are solidarily liable to INC.

CA: Affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the award.

II. Issue

Whether or not the memorandum of agreement entered into by the Chan and Yoro
was intended to find hidden treasure.

III. Ruling

Yes. At this juncture, it is vital to underscore the findings of the trial court and the
Court of Appeals as to what was the real intention of the petitioner and Yoro in
undertaking the excavations. The findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals
on this point are in complete unison. Petitioner and Yoro were in quest for hidden
treasure and, undoubtedly, they were partners in this endeavor.
This written contract, according to the INC clearly shows that the intention of the
parties therein was to search for hidden treasure. The alleged digging for a septic
tank was just a cover-up of their real intention. The aim of the petitioner and Yoro to
intrude and surreptitiously hunt for hidden treasure in the respondent’s premises
should make both parties liable.

Solidary liable

Chan and Yoro are jointly liable as they are joint tortfeasors. Verily, the
responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasidelict is solidary. All
the requisites of quasi delict are present in the case. Chan and Yoro cooperated in
committing the tort. They even had provisions in their MOA as to how they would
divide the treasure if any is found within or outside petitioner’s property line. Thus,
the MOA, instead of exculpating petitioner from liability, is the very noose that
insures that he be so declared as liable.

You might also like