Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRISCO F. DOMALSIN v. SPS. JUANITO VALENCIANO AND AMALIA VALENCIANO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 142676 2011-06-06	EMERITA MUÑOZ v. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Title is never in issue in a forcible entry case, the court should base its decision on who had prior physical possession. The main thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior possession and that same was lost through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth, so that it behooves the court to restore possession regardless of title or ownership. [56]
	GR No. 183606 2009-10-27	CHARLIE T. LEE v. ROSITA DELA PAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Primarily, this case stemmed from a forcible entry case filed by respondent against petitioner. A forcible entry case is an ejectment suit. In ejectment suits or ejectment proceedings, the only issue involved is: who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de facto, not possession de jure? Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[22] The main thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior possession and that the same was lost through force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth, so that it behooves the court to restore possession regardless of title or ownership.[23]
	GR No. 184285 2009-09-25	RODOLFO 'RUDY' CANLAS v. ILUMINADA TUBIL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint.[15] In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.[16]
	GR No. 158877 2009-06-16	JOVEN DE GRANO v. GREGORIO LACABA NACHURA, J.
For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the complainant must allege and prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property and that he was deprived of such possession by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.[30] A party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain in the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.[31]
	GR No. 175952 2008-04-30	SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. ATLANTIC GULF TINGA, J,
At the outset, it is well to restate the rule that what determines the nature of the action as well as the tribunal or body which has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint.[7]
	GR No. 175720 2007-09-11	CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEZ v. EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied.[12] The sole issue to be resolved is the question as to who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[13] Being a summary proceeding intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property, the question of title is not involved[14] and should be raised by the affected party in an appropriate action in the proper court.[15]
	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.
Still the petitioners unrelentingly argue that the proceedings below were null for failure to implead Melu-Jean, the alleged owner, as an indispensable party-defendant. As previously mentioned, the sole issue in an unlawful detainer case is who has the right to the physical possession of the property. Consequently, 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. Such occupant is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the premises upon demand.[30] As earlier pronounced in Domalsin v. Valenciano,[31] an action of forcible entry and detainer may be maintained only against one in possession at the commencement of the action, and not against one who does not in fact hold the land.