This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| An ejectment case, based on the allegation of possession by tolerance, falls under the category of unlawful detainer. Where the plaintiff allows the defendant to use his/her property by tolerance without any contract, the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he/she will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie.[20] | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Granted by the CA an extension of fifteen (15) days from 25 October, 2003 or until 9 November, 2003 within which to file its petition for review,[29] it does not likewise help ZFMC's cause any that it was only able to do so on 24 November 2003.[30] Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process,[31] it has been held, time and again, that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege.[32] Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory.[33] Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not[34] and no court - not even the Supreme Court - has the power to revise, review, change or alter the same.[35] The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[36] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The statements in the complaint that respondents' possession of the building was by mere tolerance of petitioner clearly make out a case for unlawful detainer. Unlawful detainer involves the person's withholding from another of the possession of the real property to which the latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the former's right to hold possession under the contract, either expressed or implied.[16] | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The right to appeal is a purely statutory right. Not being a natural right or a part of due process, the right to appeal may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor.[41] For this reason, payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional.[42] Nevertheless, as this Court ruled in Aranas v. Endona,[43] the strict application of the jurisdictional nature of the above rule on payment of appellate docket fees may be mitigated under exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice. It is always within the power of this Court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from their operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.[44] | |||||