This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After a thorough consideration of the submission of the parties and the records of the case, we find that the petition is bereft of merit. Petitioners' insistence that the inferior and appellate courts erred in resolving the issue of ownership in this case in order to resolve the question of who has a better right to possess the subject property finds no support in law nor in jurisprudence. It is settled that in ejectment cases, the lower court (whether Metropolitan, Municipal, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court) may decide the issue of ownership if it is intertwined with the question of possession.[31] As held in Paz v. Reyes:[32] | |||||
|
2000-03-09 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| It is true that, as the Court of Appeals pointed out, the only issue in ejectment cases is the physical possession of the premises, independent of any claim of ownership by the parties. This must be so because the issue of ownership cannot be definitively decided in an ejectment case where the Metropolitan, Municipal and Circuit Trial Courts have no jurisdictions.[6] For this reason, allegations of ownership are not required in ejectment suits as the only issue is physical possession. If this were not the rule, the defendant through the simple ruse of claiming title to the property, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous could challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court and delay the disposition of a summary proceeding. This rule, however, does not preclude the ejectment court from inquiring into the issue of ownership when the same is intertwined with the question of possession.[7] Indeed, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, grants inferior courts jurisdiction to determine ownership questions, albeit provisionally:SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Muncipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: | |||||