This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| "In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the main issue is possession de facto, independently of any claim of ownership or possession de jure that either party may set forth in his pleading."[27] The plaintiff must prove that it was in prior physical possession of the premises until it was deprived thereof by the defendant.[28] The principal issue must be possession de facto, or actual possession, and ownership is merely ancillary to such issue. The summary character of the proceedings is designed to quicken the determination of possession de facto in the interest of preserving the peace of the community, but the summary proceedings may not be proper to resolve ownership of the property. Consequently, any issue on ownership arising in forcible entry or unlawful detainer is resolved only provisionally for the purpose of determining the principal issue of possession.[29] On the other hand, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property and whatever may be the character of the plaintiff's prior possession, if it has in its favor priority in time, it has the security that entitles it to remain on the property until it is lawfully ejected through an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria by another having a better right.[30] | |||||
|
2014-09-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case can always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal,[30] since jurisdictional issues, as a rule, cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court.[31] Thus, the respondent is not prevented from raising the question on the court's jurisdiction in his appeal, if any, to the June 3, 2002 decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 666. | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the Petition at bar, respondents alleged in their Complaint that they are the registered owners of the subject property;the subject property was being occupied by the petitioner pursuant to a monthly lease contract; petitioner refused to accede to respondents' demand for rental increase; the respondents sent petitioner a letter terminating the lease agreement and demanding that petitioner vacate and turn over the possession of the subject property to respondents; and despite such demand, petitioner failed to surrender the subject property to respondents.[29] The Complaint sufficiently alleges the unlawful withholding of the subject property by petitioner, constitutive of unlawful detainer, although the exact words "unlawful withholding" were not used. In an action for unlawful detainer, an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.[30] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' occupation of subject lot was on the mere tolerance of the previous owner SFC. Such right to occupy ceased when the SFC sold the subject lot to respondent which has been issued a title thereto, hence, entitled to its possession.[15] Petitioners having withheld possession of subject lot, despite respondent's demand, they have become deforciant occupants. | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. Jurisdiction of the court, as well as the nature of the action, is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[36] An error in jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even for the first time on appeal.[37] | |||||
|
2005-05-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Since the property is titled to the respondents, they are entitled to possess the same.[23] It bears stressing that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[24] | |||||
|
2003-09-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In view of the foregoing, we affirm the appellate court's ruling that respondent is entitled to possession de facto. This determination, however, is only provisional in nature.[50] Well-settled is the rule that an award of possession de facto over a piece of property does not constitute res judicata as to the issue of its ownership.[51] | |||||
|
2000-08-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| action against Que, i.e., specific performance and damages. He maintains that inasmuch as his cause of action against Que was independent of the cause of action against GDREC, the inclusion of GDREC in the first Amended Complaint merely resulted in misjoinder of a cause of action and party which he remedied by dropping GDREC from the case before the trial court and proceeding only against Que.[10] The petition must be denied. It is settled that jurisdiction of courts over the subject matter of the litigation is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint.[11] Klaver's original Complaint contained the following pertinent | |||||
|
2000-03-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| [14] Rubio v. MTCC, Branch 4, Cagayan de Oro City, 252 SCRA 172, 181-182 [1996]. | |||||