Lawyerly

GR No. 179011

2013-04-15

PERALTA, J.

In ejectment cases, the only issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants.[31] In an action for unlawful detainer, the real party-in-interest as party-defendant is the person who is in possession of the property without the benefit of any contract of lease and only upon the tolerance and generosity of its owner.[32] Well settled is the rule that a person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[33] His status is analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner.[34]

GR No. 148843

2012-09-05

ANTIOQUIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN P. RABACAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Respondents' prior physical possession of the property upon the supposed permission given by the predecessor-in-interest of Mariano Antioquia, Sr. and apparently with the latter's tolerance as the subsequent owner, does not automatically entitle them to continue in said possession and does not give them a better right to the property. Well-settled is the rule that persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them is bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.[17] From the time the title to the property was transferred in the name of petitioner ADC, respondents' possession was converted into one by mere tolerance by the owner. The forbearance ceased when said new owner made a demand on respondents to vacate the property. Thenceforth, respondents' occupancy had become unlawful.[18]

GR No. 152423

2010-12-15

SPS. MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL AND VICTORIA SORDEVILLA v. MARIA COPRADA

PERALTA, J.

Since respondent's occupation of the subject lot is by mere tolerance or permission of the petitioners, without any contract between them, respondent is bound by an implied promise that she will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against her.[21]

GR No. 164402

2010-07-05

ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears.[24] It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein.[25] It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession.[26] Thus, in Arambulo v. Gungab,[27] this Court declared that the "age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof."

GR No. 166941

2009-12-14

SPS. DENNIS BARIAS AND DIVINA BARIAS v. BONEO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Respondents have a Torrens title over the property which was issued in 1991. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[20] The deed of sale which was executed by Silvestra in 1994 and was the subject of a case for annulment could not affect the herein respondents-registered owners' superior right to possess the property.[21]

GR No. 160239

2009-11-25

ANGELINA SORIENTE v. ESTATE OF LATE ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION

PERALTA, J.

The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession.[32] All that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property, so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.[33] Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only it is necessary to decide the question of possession.[34] The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[35]

GR No. 180675

2009-07-27

VIRGILIO BOTE v. SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES CORPORATION

CORONA, J.

Settled is the rule that the person who has a Torrens title over the land is entitled to possession thereof.[12] The MTC merely depended on the allegations of the parties that their respective certificates cover the land in question. However, it did not determine whose title actually covers the disputed property. A geodetic survey to determine the metes and bounds of the lots covered by the respective titles of the parties could have solved the matter.

GR No. 176282

2008-08-22

VICTORIA FERNANDO v. SPS. REGINALDO LIM AND ASUNCION LIM

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As a rule, the nature of a complaint for unlawful detainer and the jurisdiction of a court over it are not altered by the mere claim of the defendant of title to the property subject matter of the ejectment case.[56] Even a pending action involving title to the property which the defendant may have instituted in another court will not abate or suspend the summary proceedings for unlawful detainer.[57] The underlying reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of the case by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[58]

GR No. 171315

2008-02-26

ANTONIO ARBIZO v. SPS. ANTONIO SANTILLAN and ROSARIO L. SANTILLAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

What determines the cause of action is the nature of defendant's entry into the land. If the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed against the intruder within one year therefrom is forcible entry. If, on the other hand, the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal, the case is one of unlawful detainer which must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand.[15]

GR No. 157573

2008-02-11

Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Respondent's title over the subject property is evidence of its ownership thereof. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[40] Moreover, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[41]

GR No. 157806

2007-11-22

SPS. SHEIKDING BOOC AND BILY BOOC v. FIVE STAR MARKETING CO.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Arambulo v. Gungab[16], this Court held:The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession. But even if there was a claim of juridical possession or an assertion of ownership by the defendant, the MTCC may still take cognizance of the case. All that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership. Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only as it is necessary to decide the question of possession. The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[17] In addition, it is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[18]

GR No. 175720

2007-09-11

CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEZ v. EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Thus, all that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.[16] But this adjudication is only provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[17]

GR NO. 159292

2007-07-12

SPS. RICHARD B. PASCUAL AND CRISTINA D. PASCUAL v. SPS. REYNALDO P. CORONEL AND ASUNCION MALIG CORONEL

NACHURA, J.

Likewise, in the recent case of Umpoc v. Mercado,[27] the Court declared that the trial court did not err in giving more probative weight to the TCT in the name of the decedent vis-à-vis the contested unregistered Deed of Sale. Later in Arambulo v. Gungab,[28] the Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful detainer case. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[29]

GR NO. 166714

2007-02-09

AMELIA S. ROBERTS v. MARTIN B. PAPIO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The sole issue for resolution in an action for unlawful detainer is material or de facto possession of the property. Even if the defendant claims juridical possession or ownership over the property based on a claim that his transaction with the plaintiff relative to the property is merely an equitable mortgage, or that he had repurchased the property from the plaintiff, the MeTC may still delve into and take cognizance of the case and make an initial or provisional determination of who between the plaintiff and the defendant is the owner and, in the process, resolve the issue of who is entitled to the possession. The MeTC, in unlawful detainer case, decides the question of ownership only if it is intertwined with and necessary to resolve the issue of possession.[48] The resolution of the MeTC on the ownership of the property is merely provisional or interlocutory. Any question involving the issue of ownership should be raised and resolved in a separate action brought specifically to settle the question with finality, in this case, Civil Case No. 01-851 which respondent filed before the RTC.

	GR No. 179011 2013-04-15	REY CASTIGADOR CATEDRILLA v. MARIO PERALTA, J.
In ejectment cases, the only issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants.[31] In an action for unlawful detainer, the real party-in-interest as party-defendant is the person who is in possession of the property without the benefit of any contract of lease and only upon the tolerance and generosity of its owner.[32] Well settled is the rule that a person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[33] His status is analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner.[34]
	GR No. 148843 2012-09-05	ANTIOQUIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN P. RABACAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Respondents' prior physical possession of the property upon the supposed permission given by the predecessor-in-interest of Mariano Antioquia, Sr. and apparently with the latter's tolerance as the subsequent owner, does not automatically entitle them to continue in said possession and does not give them a better right to the property. Well-settled is the rule that persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them is bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.[17] From the time the title to the property was transferred in the name of petitioner ADC, respondents' possession was converted into one by mere tolerance by the owner. The forbearance ceased when said new owner made a demand on respondents to vacate the property. Thenceforth, respondents' occupancy had become unlawful.[18]
	GR No. 152423 2010-12-15	SPS. MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL AND VICTORIA SORDEVILLA v. MARIA COPRADA PERALTA, J.
Since respondent's occupation of the subject lot is by mere tolerance or permission of the petitioners, without any contract between them, respondent is bound by an implied promise that she will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against her.[21]
	GR No. 164402 2010-07-05	ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears.[24] It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein.[25] It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession.[26] Thus, in Arambulo v. Gungab,[27] this Court declared that the "age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof."
	GR No. 166941 2009-12-14	SPS. DENNIS BARIAS AND DIVINA BARIAS v. BONEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondents have a Torrens title over the property which was issued in 1991. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[20] The deed of sale which was executed by Silvestra in 1994 and was the subject of a case for annulment could not affect the herein respondents-registered owners' superior right to possess the property.[21]
	GR No. 160239 2009-11-25	ANGELINA SORIENTE v. ESTATE OF LATE ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession.[32] All that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property, so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.[33] Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only it is necessary to decide the question of possession.[34] The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[35]
	GR No. 180675 2009-07-27	VIRGILIO BOTE v. SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES CORPORATION CORONA, J.
Settled is the rule that the person who has a Torrens title over the land is entitled to possession thereof.[12] The MTC merely depended on the allegations of the parties that their respective certificates cover the land in question. However, it did not determine whose title actually covers the disputed property. A geodetic survey to determine the metes and bounds of the lots covered by the respective titles of the parties could have solved the matter.
	GR No. 176282 2008-08-22	VICTORIA FERNANDO v. SPS. REGINALDO LIM AND ASUNCION LIM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a rule, the nature of a complaint for unlawful detainer and the jurisdiction of a court over it are not altered by the mere claim of the defendant of title to the property subject matter of the ejectment case.[56] Even a pending action involving title to the property which the defendant may have instituted in another court will not abate or suspend the summary proceedings for unlawful detainer.[57] The underlying reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of the case by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[58]
	GR No. 171315 2008-02-26	ANTONIO ARBIZO v. SPS. ANTONIO SANTILLAN and ROSARIO L. SANTILLAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
What determines the cause of action is the nature of defendant's entry into the land. If the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed against the intruder within one year therefrom is forcible entry. If, on the other hand, the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal, the case is one of unlawful detainer which must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand.[15]
	GR No. 157573 2008-02-11	Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Respondent's title over the subject property is evidence of its ownership thereof. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[40] Moreover, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[41]
	GR No. 157806 2007-11-22	SPS. SHEIKDING BOOC AND BILY BOOC v. FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Arambulo v. Gungab[16], this Court held:The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession. But even if there was a claim of juridical possession or an assertion of ownership by the defendant, the MTCC may still take cognizance of the case. All that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership. Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only as it is necessary to decide the question of possession. The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[17] In addition, it is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[18]
	GR No. 175720 2007-09-11	CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEZ v. EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Thus, all that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.[16] But this adjudication is only provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[17]
	GR NO. 159292 2007-07-12	SPS. RICHARD B. PASCUAL AND CRISTINA D. PASCUAL v. SPS. REYNALDO P. CORONEL AND ASUNCION MALIG CORONEL NACHURA, J.
Likewise, in the recent case of Umpoc v. Mercado,[27] the Court declared that the trial court did not err in giving more probative weight to the TCT in the name of the decedent vis-à-vis the contested unregistered Deed of Sale. Later in Arambulo v. Gungab,[28] the Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful detainer case. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[29]
	GR NO. 166714 2007-02-09	AMELIA S. ROBERTS v. MARTIN B. PAPIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The sole issue for resolution in an action for unlawful detainer is material or de facto possession of the property. Even if the defendant claims juridical possession or ownership over the property based on a claim that his transaction with the plaintiff relative to the property is merely an equitable mortgage, or that he had repurchased the property from the plaintiff, the MeTC may still delve into and take cognizance of the case and make an initial or provisional determination of who between the plaintiff and the defendant is the owner and, in the process, resolve the issue of who is entitled to the possession. The MeTC, in unlawful detainer case, decides the question of ownership only if it is intertwined with and necessary to resolve the issue of possession.[48] The resolution of the MeTC on the ownership of the property is merely provisional or interlocutory. Any question involving the issue of ownership should be raised and resolved in a separate action brought specifically to settle the question with finality, in this case, Civil Case No. 01-851 which respondent filed before the RTC.

VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO v. EMERENCIANA R. GUNGAB