Damian Hermitaño v. Marcelino Clarito

Summary

This landmark civil case established important principles regarding protection of possession in Philippine law. Plaintiff Hermitaño claimed defendant Clarito unlawfully ousted him from land conveyed by the municipality of Carmona in 1897. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of restitutory interdict, holding that regardless of the validity of the original municipal conveyance, plaintiff's peaceful possession for over two years entitled him to legal protection under Article 446 of the Civil Code. The Court rejected defendant's statute of limitations defense by finding the actual ouster occurred on April 28, 1900, not April 1 as claimed. The decision established that restitutory interdict protects even those with naked possession de facto, focusing exclusively on the fact of possession and ouster rather than examining title validity. This case demonstrates the Philippine legal system's strong protection of possessory rights and the procedural requirements for restitutory interdict actions.