This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-04-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that the ruling in Borre does not apply to this case because here, there is nothing to show that his title to the subject property had expired, or had been conveyed to another, or had been defeated by a title paramount. In fact, petitioner informs this Court that the dispute between him and China Bank concerning the ownership of the subject property is still pending litigation before Branch 17 of RTC-Malolos, Bulacan. Hence, petitioner asserts that there are yet no factual and legal bases for the CA to rule that he lost his title over the property. Besides, petitioner believes that ownership is not an issue in actions for ejectment especially when the parties thereto are the landlord and tenant. Moreover, petitioner contends that based on Fige v. Court of Appeals,[31] respondent as lessee cannot be allowed to interpose a defense against him as lessor without the former first delivering to him the leased premises. Petitioner also claims that he is entitled to payment of damages in the form of fair rental value or reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. In sum, petitioner wants this Court to reverse and set aside the assailed CA Decision and Resolution and to reinstate the respective Decisions of the MTC and RTC. | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. It is also settled that in the resolution of such a case, what is material is the determination of who is entitled to the physical possession of the property. Indeed, any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof. The question of possession is primordial while the issue of ownership is unessential.[17] | |||||
|
2005-08-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The issue involved in accion reivindicatoria is the recovery of ownership of real property. This differs from accion publiciana where the issue is the better right of possession or possession de jure, and accion interdictal where the issue is material possession or possession de facto. In an action for unlawful detainer, the question of possession is primordial while the issue of ownership is generally unessential.[20] | |||||