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] | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of Section 412 of the Local Government Code on barangay conciliation (previously contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1508) is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies -- the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.[22] Nevertheless, the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.[23] | |||||
|
2005-04-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In actions for forcible entry and [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 pleadings, and an appeal does not operate to change the nature of the original action. On appeal, in an ejectment case, it is within the discretion of the court to look into the evidence supporting the assigned errors relating to the alleged ownership of appellant insofar as said evidence would indicate or determine the nature of appellant's possession of the controverted premises. Said court should not however resolve the issue raised by such assigned errors. The resolution of said issues would effect an adjudication on ownership which is not sanctioned in the summary action for unlawful detainer.[35] | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On March 15, 1999, Cynthia Arellano-Navarro, Nilo Nase, the Spouses Vibar and their daughter Maricris, executed affidavits charging the petitioner, her counsel, security guards Larry Ordines, Arsenio Rufano, and Dante Vargas, with robbery, grave coercion and serious illegal detention.[31] On the same day, police operatives arrested the security guards and brought them to the police precinct for investigation.[32] The policemen turned over the possession of the property to the Navarro Spouses. The Investigating Prosecutor thereafter found probable cause for serious illegal detention against Ordines and Rufano and filed an Information for serious illegal detention against the said security guards docketed as Criminal Case No. 82215.[33] The accused security guards appealed the resolution to the Secretary of Justice. | |||||