This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Notably, the Sps. Viray and Vda. de Viray, after peremptorily prevailing in their cases supportive of their claim of ownership and possession of Lots 733-A and 733-F (Fajardo Plan), cannot now be deprived of their rights by the expediency of the Sps. Usi maintaining, as here, an accion publiciana and/or accion reivindicatoria, two of the three kinds of actions to recover possession of real property. The third, accion interdictal, comprises two distinct causes of action, namely forcible entry and unlawful detainer,[44] the issue in both cases being limited to the right to physical possession or possession de facto, independently of any claim of ownership that either party may set forth in his or her pleadings,[45] albeit the court has the competence to delve into and resolve the issue of ownership but only to address the issue of priority of possession.[46] Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand to vacate following the expiration of the right to possess, in case of unlawful detainer.[47] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth."[31] "[W]here the defendant's possession of the property is illegal ab initio," the summary action for forcible entry (detentacion) is the remedy to recover possession.[32] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The principal parties in both cases are the Spouses Layos, on one hand, and La Paz and FEGDI, on the other. The Spouses Layos and La Paz both claim title to the subject property, while FEGDI is the partner of La Paz in a joint venture to develop the said property. There may be other parties named in both cases, but these parties only derive their rights from the principal parties. The Court has previously held that for purposes of res judicata, only substantial identity of parties is required and not absolute identity. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. In other words, privity or a shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke application of the principle of res judicata.[42] It is fundamental that the application of res judicata may not be evaded by simply including additional parties in a subsequent litigation.[43] | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Article 487 of the Civil Code provides, "[a]ny one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment." This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article 487 includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion). The summary actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer seek the recovery of physical possession only. These actions are brought before municipal trial courts within one year from dispossession. However, accion publiciana, which is a plenary action for recovery of the right to possess, falls under the jurisdiction of the proper regional trial court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year. Accion de reivindicacion, which seeks the recovery of ownership, also falls under the jurisdiction of the proper regional trial court.[17] | |||||