Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOURDES DELA CRUZ v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178159 2011-03-02	SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO v. WILFREDO LINSANGAN ABAD, J.
The remaining question is the nature of the action based on the allegations of the complaint. The RTC characterized it as an action for forcible entry, Wilfredo having entered the property and taken over from widow Emiliana on the sly. The problem with this characterization is that the complaint contained no allegation that the Dionisios were in possession of the property before Wilfredo occupied it either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, an element of that kind of eviction suit.[11] Nowhere in the recitation of the amended complaint did the Dionisios assert that they were in prior possession of the land and were ousted from such possession by Wilfredo's unlawful occupation of the property.
	GR No. 176282 2008-08-22	VICTORIA FERNANDO v. SPS. REGINALDO LIM AND ASUNCION LIM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The allegations in a complaint[50] and the character of the relief sought[51] determine the nature of the action and the court with jurisdiction over it. The defenses set up in an answer are not determinative.[52]
	GR No. 150025 2008-07-23	SPS. NARCISO BARNACHEA AND JULITA BARNACHEA v. CA BRION, J.
In forcible entry, (1) the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property until he was deprived of possession by the defendant; (2) the defendant secures possession of the disputed property from the plaintiff by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; hence, his possession is unlawful from the beginning; (3) the law does not require a previous demand by the plaintiff for the defendant to vacate the premises; and (4) the action can be brought only within one-year from the date the defendant actually and illegally entered the property.[10]
	GR No. 136409 2008-03-14	SUBHASH C. PASRICHA and JOSEPHINE A. PASRICHA v. DON LUIS DISON REALTY NACHURA, J.
Unlawful detainer cases are summary in nature. In such cases, the elements to be proved and resolved are the fact of lease and the expiration or violation of its terms.[48] Specifically, the essential requisites of unlawful detainer are: 1) the fact of lease by virtue of a contract, express or implied; 2) the expiration or termination of the possessor's right to hold possession; 3) withholding by the lessee of possession of the land or building after the expiration or termination of the right to possess; 4) letter of demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises; and 5) the filing of the action within one year from the date of the last demand received by the defendant.[49]
	GR No. 147082 2008-01-28	HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA NACHURA, J.
If the rigid application of the Rules would frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the Court's power to suspend the Rules or except a particular case from its operation.[27] The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final.[28]
	GR NO. 165849 2007-12-10	GILBERT G. GUY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies.[12] Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law.