This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In their Complaint, petitioners maintained that the respondent took possession and control of the subject property without any contractual or legal basis.[33] Assuming that these allegations are true, it hence follows that respondent's possession was illegal from the very beginning. Therefore, the foundation of petitioners' complaint is one for forcible entry - that is "the forcible exclusion of the original possessor by a person who has entered without right."[34] Thus, and as correctly found by the CA, there can be no tolerance as petitioners alleged that respondent's possession was illegal at the inception.[35] | |||||
|
2009-02-18 |
|||||
| property by the true owner. Whatever may be the cause or the fact from which it can be deduced that the possessor has knowledge of the defects of his title or mode of acquisition, it must be considered sufficient to show bad faith.[8] Such interruption takes place upon service of summons.[9] | |||||