This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In University Physician Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[19] we applied both the "more appropriate action test" and "anticipatory test." In this case, the new owner of an apartment sent a demand letter to the lessee to vacate the leased apartment unit. When the lessee filed an action for damages and injunction against the new owner, the new owner moved for the dismissal of the action for damages on account of the action for ejectment it had also filed. We noted that ejectment suit is the more appropriate action to resolve the issue of whether the lessee had the right to occupy the apartment unit, where the question of possession is likewise the primary issue for resolution. We also noted that the lessee, after her unjustified refusal to vacate the premises, was aware that an ejectment case against her was forthcoming; the lessee's filing of the complaint for damages and injunction was but a canny and preemptive maneuver intended to block the new owner's action for ejectment. | |||||
|
2009-07-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the first element of forum shopping is present. The parties to CA-G.R. SP No. 86478 and Petitioner's Unlawful Detainer Case are the same. As to the second element, it must be stressed that in ejectment cases, either in unlawful detainer or in forcible entry cases, the only issue to be resolved is the question of who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[6] Thus, these are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property. Title is not involved; that is why it is a special civil action with a special procedure.[7] Here, the rights asserted in both cases are also identical, namely, the right of possession over the subject property. In fact, in the Unlawful Detainer case, petitioner's cause of action was based on her alleged superior right over the property in question as a lessee thereof, pursuant to the provisional permit from the LMB, as against respondent's allegedly expired sub-lease contract with the National Government.[8] This is the very same assertion of petitioner and the contentious fact involved in CA-G.R. SP No. 86478 (Respondent's Forcible Entry Case). As the issues in both cases refer singularly to the right of material possession over the disputed property, then an adjudication in Repondent's Forcible Entry Case constitutes an adjudication of Petitioner's Unlawful Detainer Case, such that the latter court would be bound thereby and could not render a contrary ruling on the very same issue. | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that in summary actions for ejectment such as Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer, the only issue involved is that of physical possession or possession de facto, the purpose of which is only to protect the owner from any physical encroachment from without.[9] Such cases are merely quieting processes, not designed to determine actual title, being summary actions intended to provide an expeditious manner for protecting possession or right to possession without involvement of title.[10] It is a settled rule that the mere assertion of ownership by the defendant in an ejectment case will not oust the municipal court of its summary jurisdiction.[11] | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In University Physician's Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [25] we held that it is the prior case for specific performance which should be dismissed, thus:x x x while the case before the Court of First Instance of Cavite appears to be one for specific performance with damages, it cannot be denied that the real issue between the parties is whether or not the lessee should be allowed to continue occupying the land as lessee. | |||||