Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

COLITO T. PAJUYO v. CA

This case has been cited 36 times or more.

2016-01-11
LEONEN, J.
Under this principle, courts shall not aid parties in their illegal acts.[86]  The court shall leave them as they are.[87] It is an equitable principle that bars parties from enforcing their illegal acts, assailing the validity of their acts, or using its invalidity as a defense.[88]
2015-09-14
LEONEN, J.
It must be stated that the purpose of an action of forcible entry and detainer is that, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence or terror. In affording this remedy of restitution the object of the statute is to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder which would ensue from the withdrawal of the remedy, and the reasonable hope such withdrawal would create that some advantage must accrue to those persons who, believing themselves entitled to the  possession of property, resort to force to gain possession rather than to  some appropriate action in the courts to assert their claims.[95]
2014-12-03
MENDOZA, J.
The underlying philosophy behind ejectment suits is to prevent breach of the peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his. Ejectment proceedings are summary in nature so the authorities can speedily settle actions to recover possession because of the overriding need to quell sociaI disturbances.[44]
2014-01-15
BERSAMIN, J.
delicto is a universal doctrine that holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation; and where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other.[17] Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in pari delicto is not always rigid. An accepted exception arises when its application contravenes well-established public policy.[18] In this jurisdiction, public policy has been defined as "that
2013-04-17
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Nonetheless, the declaration by the DENR-NCR that Lot 3976 is still part of the public domain does not mean that neither of the parties is entitled to the possession of the subject properties. In Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals,[55] we reiterated the policy behind the summary action of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, thus: It must be stated that the purpose of an action of forcible entry and detainer is that, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence or terror. In affording this remedy of restitution the object of the statute is to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder which would ensue from the withdrawal of the remedy, and the reasonable hope such withdrawal would create that some advantage must accrue to those persons who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of property, resort to force to gain possession rather than to some appropriate action in the courts to assert their claims. This is the philosophy at the foundation of all these actions of forcible entry and detainer which are designed to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his.[56]
2013-04-17
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As respondents ignored petitioners' demands, the latter brought a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents before Barangay Moonwalk in Parañaque City. The case was docketed as Barangay Case No. 05/04-070. On July 24, 2004, Atty. Wendell E. Coronel, Lupon/Pangkat Secretary of Barangay Moonwalk issued a Certification to File Action[29] in said case upon the reasons "Failed or refused to accept/obey summons to appear for hearing" and "Settlement has been repudiated."
2013-03-13
PERALTA, J.
To begin with, the only question that the courts must resolve in an unlawful detainer or ejectment suit is - who between the parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property in dispute.[10]
2013-01-30
BRION, J.
We agree that ownership carries the right of possession, but the possession contemplated by the concept of ownership is not exactly the same as the possession in issue in a forcible entry case. Possession in forcible entry suits refers only to possession de facto, or actual or material possession, and not possession flowing out of ownership; these are different legal concepts[36] for which the law provides different remedies for recovery of possession.[37] As we explained in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals,[38] and again in the more recent cases of Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals,[39] De Grano v. Lacaba,[40] and Lagazo v. Soriano,[41] the word "possession" in forcible entry suits refers to nothing more than prior physical possession or possession de facto, not possession de jure[42] or legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[43] Title is not the issue,[44] and the absence of it "is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case."[45]
2013-01-30
BRION, J.
Thus, in a forcible entry case, "a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.  Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him."[46] He cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror -- not even by its owners.[47] For these reasons, an action for forcible entry is summary in nature aimed only at providing an expeditious means of protecting actual possession.[48] Ejectment suits are intended to "prevent breach of x x x peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his."[49] Thus, lest the purpose of these summary proceedings be defeated, any discussion or issue of ownership is avoided unless it is necessary to resolve the issue of de facto possession.
2011-12-12
PERALTA, J.
In sum, We find that the conduct of the court-appointed relocation survey in this case to determine where the exact boundaries of the subject properties properly lie, has been but a futile exercise and so is the Order of the RTC remanding the case to the MeTC for the reception in evidence and evaluation of Engr. Encisa's report on the said survey because not being necessary under the premises, they were anathema to the policy underlying the summary nature of ejectment proceedings: that is to provide an expeditious means of  resolving the issue of possession, eschewing any question as to title and ownership which ought to proceed independently, [71] in order to speedily address breaches of the peace characteristic of disturbances of property possession. [72]  This, especially because there is already an initial showing in the complaint itself that respondent, the plaintiff therein, has not been in actual possession of the property.  The contending claims of ownership between petitioner and respondent in this case, as well as the opposing possessory rights that emanate from such claims, may not therefore be resolved in such summary action as ejectment but rather in a separate action. [73]
2011-06-06
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We more extensively discussed in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals [57] that: Ownership or the right to possess arising from ownership is not at issue in an action for recovery of possession. The parties cannot present evidence to prove ownership or right to legal possession except to prove the nature of the possession when necessary to resolve the issue of physical possession. The same is true when the defendant asserts the absence of title over the property. The absence of title over the contested lot is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case.
2011-05-30
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals,[21] we already pointed out that: A party's failure to sign the certification against forum shopping is different from the party's failure to sign personally the verification.  The certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by the party, and not by counsel. The certification of counsel renders the petition defective.
2011-01-31
MENDOZA, J.
Going over the RTC's findings and disposition, the Court is of the considered view that it acted well within its jurisdiction. It is settled in ejectment suits that a defendant's claim of ownership over a disputed property will not divest the first level courts of their summary jurisdiction. Thus, even if the pleadings raise the issue of ownership, the court may still pass on the same although only for the purpose of determining the question of possession. Any adjudication with regard to the issue of ownership is only provisional and will not bar another action between the same parties which may involve the title to the land. This doctrine is but a necessary consequence of the nature of ejectment cases where the only issue up for adjudication is the physical or material possession over the real property.[23]
2011-01-31
MENDOZA, J.
In Pajuyo v. CA,[26] the very case relied upon by the respondents and later cited by the CA in its assailed decision, the Court reiterated that the determination of the rights of claimants to public lands is distinct from the determination of who has better right of physical possession. While it was held therein that the CA erred in making a premature determination of the rights of the parties under Proclamation No. 137, it was emphasized that the courts should expeditiously resolve the issue of physical possession to prevent disorder and breaches of peace.
2010-04-05
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, [37] we categorically stated that while the petition was flawed as the certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, such procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. [38] Finally, the Court has also on occasion held that the party need not sign the verification;a party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. [39]
2010-04-05
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. [19] A pleading by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. [20] The party need not sign the verification. A party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. [21]
2010-02-04
NACHURA, J.
Prior physical possession is the primary consideration in a forcible entry case. A party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.[18] The party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror.[19]
2009-10-27
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court finds no reason to disturb petitioner's possession of the two parcels of land. The Court has consistently held that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable, quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence, or terror. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.[39] Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.[40]
2008-12-24
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even assuming that the Secretary's Certificate was flawed, Atty. Barranda may still sign the Verification attached to the Petition at bar.  A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.[35]  The party itself need not sign the verification.  A party's representative, lawyer or any other person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.[36]  Atty. Barranda, as petitioner's counsel, was in the position to verify the truth and correctness of the allegations of the present Petition. Hence, the Verification signed by Atty. Barranda substantially complies with the formal requirements for such.
2008-11-03
QUISUMBING, J.
We find no cogent reason to overturn the consistent findings of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals that, as against petitioners, the Nisperoses are entitled to possession of the subject land where the petitioners' houses are erected.  Applicable to the instant case, which is an offshoot of an ejectment case and which also in part partakes of an ejectment case, is the following pronouncement of the Court on the matter of ejectment and possession in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals:[28]
2008-06-17
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Verily, petitioners Quizon and Zablan's possession of the subject property cannot be disturbed. We have long settled that the only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is - who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure? Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.[21]
2008-02-26
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Verily, in ejectment cases, the word "possession" means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession, in the sense contemplated in civil law. The only issue in such cases is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants.[18] It does not even matter if the party's title to property is questionable.[19]
2007-12-19
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In any case, the application of the pari delicto principle is not absolute, as there are exceptions to its application.[16]  One of these exceptions is where the application of the pari delicto rule would violate well-established public policy.[17] The prevention of lawlessness and the maintenance of peace and order are established public policies.  In the instant case, to deny respondents relief on the ground of pari delicto would put a premium on the illegal act of petitioners in taking from respondents what the former claim to be rightfully theirs.
2007-11-22
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference is on what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference is on the truth or falsity of the facts alleged.[14] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[15]
2007-11-20
TINGA, J.
Ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is not involved. The sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[28] On this point, the pronouncements in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals[29] are enlightening, thus:The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable, or when both parties intruded into public land and their applications to own the land have yet to be approved by the proper government agency. Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.
2007-10-10
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals,[23] the Court held that the requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requisite.  It is intended simply to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation.  A party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.
2007-01-26
VELASCO, JR., J.
An ejectment case, based on the allegation of possession by tolerance, falls under the category of unlawful detainer.  Unlawful detainer involves the person's withholding from another of the possession of real property to which the latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the former's right to hold possession under a contract, either expressed or implied.[16]  Where the plaintiff allows the defendant to use his/her property by tolerance without any contract, the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that s/he will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie.[17]
2006-11-30
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The facts of this case are closely akin to those in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals,[6] wherein the Court refused to subscribe to the reasoning that if the plaintiff is merely a squatter on the disputed land, then he does not have the right to demand the ejectment of another usurper. In Pajuyo, both parties were also squatters. Pajuyo bought the rights over a 250-square meter portion of public land from a person who had no title over said land, and then built a house thereon. Subsequently, Pajuyo entered into a Kasunduan with Guevarra wherein the former allowed the latter to occupy the house for free provided Guevarra maintains and cleans the house and upon Pajuyo's demand, Guevarra would voluntarily vacate said house. After the lapse of almost 10 years, Pajuyo demanded that Guevarra vacate the house, but the latter refused. Pajuyo then filed an ejectment case against Guevarra.
2006-10-16
QUISUMBING, J.
We agree with ASIAKONSTRUCT on the matter of attorney's fees.  Attorney's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit.[10]  Article 2208[11] of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justifications for the award of attorney's fees and its basis cannot be left to speculation and conjecture.[12]  Attorney's fee is allowed when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought.  Indeed, COMFAC was forced to litigate to collect payments, but due to lack of findings on the amount to be awarded, and since there is no sufficient showing of bad faith in ASIAKONSTRUCT's refusal to pay, other than an erroneous assertion of the righteousness of its cause, the attorney's fee cannot be awarded against it.[13]
2006-09-19
AZCUNA, J.
Petitioner should not trifle with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting someone else's ownership over the leased property.[31] The proceedings are "only intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is not involved."[32] In fact, the absence of title is not a ground "to withhold relief from the parties x x x."[33] "It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable x x x."[34] "[N]o questions can be raised or decided incidentally tending to defeat the title or right of possession evidenced by the documents introduced"[35] by petitioner.
2006-01-25
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals erred when it preferred the present and actual possession of respondents vis-á-vis the prior possession of petitioner on the ground that the parties do not and cannot own the lot in question. Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable, quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession. Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.[38]
2006-01-25
CARPIO MORALES, J.
The party need not sign the verification. A party's representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.[11] On the other hand, a certification of non-forum shopping is a certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith, (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof, and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.[12]
2005-11-15
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Indeed, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror.[56]  The owner who has title over the property cannot take the law into his own hands to regain possession of said property.[57]  He must go to court.[58]
2005-10-20
QUISUMBING, J.
Additionally, verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite. It is intended to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[15]
2005-07-28
TINGA, J.
Moreover, ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings only intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is not involved. The sole issue to be resolved is the question as to who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[53] Our ruling in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals[54] illustrates this point, thus:The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is-who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable, or when both parties intruded into public land and their applications to own the land have yet to be approved by the proper government agency. Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.
2005-06-28
QUISUMBING, J.
Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[27] The lower courts did not err in adjudicating the issue of possession.  Mere absence of title over the lot is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case. Plainly stated, the trial court has validly exercised its jurisdiction over the ejectment cases below.  The policy behind ejectment suits is to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder, and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what she claims is hers. The party deprived of possession must not take the law into his or her own hands.[28] For their part, herein petitioners could not be barred from defending themselves before the court adequately, as a matter of law and right.