This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Notably, even public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases as it has already been held that ejectment proceedings may involve all kinds of land.[35] Thus, in the case at bench, while the parties are fighting over the possession of a government land, the courts below are not deprived of jurisdiction to render judgment thereon.[36] Courts must resolve the issue of possession even if the parties to the ejectment suit are mere informal settlers.[37] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Admittedly, the lease contract of Verutiao and the Municipality expired on January 13, 1997 without having been renewed, and petitioner Mayor ordered Verutiao to vacate the stall, also for her failure to pay the rent amounting to P2,532.00. Under Section 44 of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1999, the stall is considered vacant and shall be disposed of. However, petitioner had to file an action for unlawful detainer against Verutiao to recover possession of her stall and cause her eviction from said premises.[35] Verutiao insisted on her right to remain as lessee of her stall and to do business thereat. Such action is designed to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder and prevent those believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property resort to force to gain possession rather than to secure appropriate action in the court to assert their claims.[36] It was incumbent upon petitioner Mayor to institute an action for the eviction of Verutiao. He cannot be permitted to invade the property and oust the lessee who is entitled to the actual possession and to place the burden upon the latter of instituting an action to try the property right.[37] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| 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.[36] 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. | |||||