This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Maunlad Homes denied Union Bank's claim that its possession of the property had become unlawful. It argued that its failure to make payments did not terminate its right to possess the property because it already acquired ownership when Union Bank failed to reserve ownership of the property under the contract. Despite Maunlad Homes' claim of ownership of the property, the Court rules that the MeTC retained its jurisdiction over the action; a defendant may not divest the MeTC of its jurisdiction by merely claiming ownership of the property.[22] Under Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, "[w]hen the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession." Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, however, states that "[t]he judgment x x x shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building." | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In support thereof, it cited several decisions to wit: Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals,[33] Consignado v. Court of Appeals,[34] and Santiago v. Cloribel.[35] Indeed, these cases support the above-mentioned pronouncement. However, at the time that herein assailed MTCC Decision and Order were issued, said decisions had been abandoned by more recent decisions. | |||||
|
2002-08-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| the subject realty since 1971. However, Antonio could not honestly claim the rights of a possessor in good faith since his tax declarations, and more so, his Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property, were either spurious or founded on false and unlawful claims. The parcels of land in question, as part of the hereditaments of Paicat, a common ancestor of Maria and Antonio, were given to neither of them in particular. It is difficult to believe that Maria and Antonio were blissfully ignorant of their respective legal rights over the disputed realty. As the two (2) surviving heirs of the Paicat Gapacan, neither Maria nor Antonio can claim absolute ownership over the entire property to the prejudice of the other, for each, in legal contemplation, is entitled to only one-half (1/2) pro-indiviso share of his or her father's estate. Prior to partition, Maria and Antonio, and upon the latter's death, the petitioners, hold the disputed property in their capacity as co-owners. In Consignado v. Court of Appeals[13] it was explained that "the juridical concept of co-ownership is unity of the object or property and plurality of subjects x x x x Each co-owner, jointly with the other co-owners, is the owner of the whole | |||||