Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FLAVIANA LIM CAJAYON v. SPS. SANTIAGO AND FORTUNATA BATUYONG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 178527 2009-11-27	JOVEN YUKI v. WELLINGTON CO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The argument is bereft of merit. The allegation of existence of implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment case. It is an elementary rule that the jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint[26] and cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[27] This principle holds even if the facts proved during trial do not support the cause of action alleged in the complaint.[28] In connection with this, it is well to note that in unlawful detainer cases the elements to be proved and resolved are the facts of lease and expiration or violation of its terms.[29]
	GR No. 176995 2008-07-30	PABLO D. ACAYLAR v. DANILO G. HARAYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The distinctions between the two forms of ejectment suits, are: first, in forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the premises until he was deprived thereof by the defendant, whereas, in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possession; second, in forcible entry, the possession of the land by the defendant is unlawful from the beginning as he acquires possession thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, while in unlawful detainer, the possession of the defendant is inceptively lawful but it becomes illegal by reason of the termination of his right to the possession of the property under his contract with the plaintiff; third, in forcible entry, the law does not require a previous demand for the defendant to vacate the premises, but in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must first make such demand, which is jurisdictional in nature.[29]
	GR No. 171442 2008-06-17	ADING QUIZON v. LANIZA D. JUAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Cajayon v. Batuyong,[12] this Court elucidated:x x x [T]he complaint must allege that one in physical possession of a land or building has been deprived of that possession by another through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. It is not essential, however, that the complaint should expressly employ the language of the law. It would be sufficient that facts are set up showing that dispossession took place under said conditions.
	GR NO. 164305 2007-11-20	JULIANA SUDARIA v. MAXIMILLIANO QUIAMBAO TINGA, J.
It is settled that jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[24]