This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court lies only when "there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[19] Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy,[20] certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal.[21] | |||||
|
2002-01-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| An action for unlawful detainer may be filed when possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld, after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of a contract, express or implied.[13] In Manuel v. Court of Appeals,[14] we categorically stated that:"Proceedings in forcible entry and detainer are wholly summary in nature. The fact of lease and the expiration of its terms are the only elements of this kind of action. The question of ownership is unessential and should be raised by the defendant in an appropriate action. Any controversy over ownership rights could and should be settled after the party who had the prior, peaceful and actual possession is returned to the property." In the case at bar, the lease contract between the parties was effectively preterminated pursuant to the stipulations thereof. At any rate, the lease period expired on November 15, 1992. Thus, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, even assuming that the pre-termination of the contract was not validly exercised, the contract of lease has nonetheless expired without the parties entering into a mutual agreement either extending or renewing it, thus rendering unlawful the occupation of the premises by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. | |||||
|
2000-06-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner was thus constrained to file a Complaint for collection of sum of money with damages[4] against respondent-spouses. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 151 rendered a decision on November 17, 1989 in favor of petitioner the dispositive portion of which reads: | |||||