This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court, in Sumulong v. Court of Appeals,[22] differentiated the distinct causes of action in forcible entry vis-à-vis unlawful detainer, to wit: Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.[23] | |||||
|
2008-07-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, there is no showing that either Zoila Acaylar or respondent made an express demand upon petitioner to vacate the subject property. In the absence of an oral or written demand, petitioner's possession of the subject property has yet to become unlawful. The absence of demand to vacate precludes us from treating this case, originally instituted as one for forcible entry, as one of unlawful detainer, since demand to vacate is jurisdictional in an action for unlawful detainer.[37] | |||||
|
2007-11-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Where the cause of action is unlawful detainer, prior possession is not always a condition sine qua non. A complaint for unlawful detainer should be distinguished from that of forcible entry. In forcible entry, the plaintiff has prior possession of the property and he is deprived thereof by the defendant through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In an unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession of the property after the expiration or termination of his right thereto under any contract, express or implied; hence, prior physical possession is not required. x x x. In ejectment cases, therefore, possession of land does not only mean actual or physical possession or occupation but also includes the subjection of the thing to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right, such as the execution of a deed of sale over a property. In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant's possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess. Hence the phrase unlawful withholding has been held to imply possession on the part of the defendant, which was legal from the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant.[25] The issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.[26] Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession. Nor does the law require one in possession of a house to reside in the house to maintain his possession.[27] As lessor of the subject property, respondent is legally considered as being in possession thereof. Hence, the fact of actual possession becomes a non-issue. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| The other kind of ejectment proceeding is unlawful detainer (desahucio), where one unlawfully withholds possession of the subject property after the expiration or termination of the right to possess. Here, the issue of rightful possession is the one decisive; for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.[7] The essential requisites of unlawful detainer are: (1) the fact of lease by virtue of a contract express or implied; (2) the expiration or termination of the possessor's right to hold possession; (3) withholding by the lessee of the possession of the land or building after expiration or termination of the right to possession; (4) letter of demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises; and (5) the action must be filed within one (1) year from date of last demand received by the defendant. | |||||
|
2006-02-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| [17] Sumulong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108817, 10 May 1994, 232 SCRA 372. | |||||
|
2005-08-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In Javelosa v. Court of the Appeals,[10] it was held that the allegation in the complaint that there was unlawful withholding of possession is sufficient to make out a case for unlawful detainer. It is equally settled that in an action for unlawful detainer, an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.[11] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The two forms of ejectment suits -- forcible entry or unlawful detainer -- may be distinguished from each other mainly by the fact that in forcible entry, the plaintiffs must prove that they were in prior possession of the premises until they were deprived thereof by the defendant; in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possession.[41] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In any event, even assuming arguendo that a demand to vacate was required for Civil Case No. 3749 to prosper, we find that the respondent's allegations in her complaint constitute sufficient compliance with the jurisdictional requirement concerning previous demand to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The complaint alleged that the petitioners were occupying the premises by tolerance, which respondent withdrew, but despite her demands, herein petitioners did not vacate the premises. An allegation in an original complaint for illegal detainer that in spite of demands made by the plaintiff the defendants had refused to restore the property, is sufficient compliance with the jurisdictional requirement of previous demand.[19] | |||||