This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has ruled that the only issue for resolution in forcible entry cases is material possession or possession de facto of the properties involved.[36] Moreover, said cases are summary in nature as to provide an expeditious means of protecting the right to possession of the property. In Joven v. Court of Appeals,[37] we held:The philosophy underlying this remedy is that irrespective 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 statute seeks to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder which might ensue from the withdrawal of the remedy. Another purpose is to discourage those persons who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property, resort to force rather than to some appropriate action in the courts to assert their claims. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Fourth. The buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale.[34] The issuance of the writ of possession had become ministerial duty on the part of HLURB since the respondent had sufficiently shown her proof of title over the subject condominium. Being the registered owner of the condominium unit, she is entitled to its possession. The case at bar is akin to foreclosure proceedings where the issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial act of the court after title on the property has been consolidated in the mortgage.[35] | |||||