Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAVID ODSIGUE v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183923 2013-11-27	GENEROSO ENESIO v. LILIA TULOP BRION, J.
In the present case, the MTC correctly observed the proper procedure in ejectment cases. As expressly provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, ejectment cases merely require the submission by the parties of affidavits and position papers. The rule directs courts to conduct hearings only when necessary to clarify factual matters. "This procedure is in keeping with the objective of the Rule of promoting the expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases."[11]
	GR No. 166838 2011-06-15	STA. LUCIA REALTY v. CITY OF PASIG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Former Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals held that the resolution of the complaint lodged before the Pasig RTC did not necessitate the assessment of the parties' evidence on the metes and bounds of their respective territories. It cited our ruling in Odsigue v. Court of Appeals [27] wherein we said that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of both its ownership and location. [28] The Court of Appeals even referred to specific provisions of the 1991 Local Government Code and Act. No. 496 to support its ruling that Pasig had the right to collect the realty taxes on the subject properties as the titles of the subject properties show on their faces that they are situated in Pasig. [29]
	GR No. 180357 2009-08-04	PIONEER INSURANCE v. HEIRS OF VICENTE CORONADO NACHURA, J.
It is true that both trial and appellate courts actually maintained the indefeasibility of the certificate of title and desisted from annulling or modifying the same. But by declaring that the property is not located in Antipolo City, the location stated in the certificate of title, they, in effect, modified the same to the prejudice of the petitioner. Worse, they did so based on incomplete information. Notably, in Odsigue v. Court of Appeals,[22] this Court, indeed, held that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence not only of ownership but also the location of the property.
	GR No. 163495 2009-05-08	SAMUEL MALABANAN TINGA, J.
Well-established is the rule that if possession is by tolerance as has been alleged in the complaint such possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate, with the possessor refusing to comply with such demand.[35]