This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In this case, it is clear from the facts that what was once a legal possession of petitioner, emanating from P.D. 293, later became illegal by the pronouncement in Tuason that the law was unconstitutional. While it is established that tolerance must be present at the start of the possession,[51] it must have been properly tacked after P.D. 293 was invalidated. At the time the decree was promulgated, respondent had no option but to allow petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest to enter the property. This is not the "tolerance" envisioned by the law. As explained in Tuason, the decree "was not as claimed a licit instance of the application of social justice principles or the exercise of police power. It was in truth a disguised, vile stratagem deliberately resorted to favor a few individuals, in callous and disdainful disregard of the rights of others. It was in reality a taking of private property without due process and without compensation whatever, from persons relying on the indefeasibility of their titles in accordance with and as explicitly guaranteed by law."[52] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Thus, in order that a municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court may acquire jurisdiction in an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the complaint specifically allege the facts constitutive of unlawful detainer.[23] The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of unlawful detainer, an action for unlawful detainer is not a proper remedy and, thus, the municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court has no jurisdiction over the case.[24] | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Under Section 1 of Rule 70,[18] the one-year period within which a complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should be counted from the date of demand, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful.[19] In the present case, it is undisputed that petitioners' Complaint was filed beyond one year from the time that respondents' possession allegedly became unlawful. | |||||