This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Neither can petitioners rely on this Court's final judgment sustaining Ocampo's ejectment from the subject property. The only issue for resolution in an ejectment case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. An ejectment case is designed to restore, through summary proceedings, the physical possession of any land or building to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties' opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. Any ruling on the question of ownership is only provisional and made for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.[28] Certainly, a judgment in an ejectment case could only resolve the question as to who has a better right to possess the subject property but definitely, it could not conclusively determine whether petitioners are entitled to the award under the ZIP or ascertain if respondents are disqualified beneficiaries.[29] | |||||
|
2009-09-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioner cannot rely on the judgment rendered in the ejectment case to buttress her claim of the ownership of the structure. Neither was that judgment a valid basis for asserting a better right to the lot on which the structure stood. In ejectment cases, the only issue is the physical and material possession of the property involved, the resolution being independent of any claim of ownership made by any of the litigants. The question of ownership is, at best, merely provisionally decided, but only for the sole purpose of determining which party has the better right to the physical possession of the property.[22] Indeed, the judgment in the ejectment case could only determine who between the petitioner and the respondents had a better right to possess Structure No. 86-313. It did not, as it could not, decide that the petitioner was entitled to the award of the lot, or that the respondents could not be considered as qualified beneficiaries of the ZIP. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Keeping these factors in mind, the courts have to give much consideration to the fact that actions for ejectment are designed to summarily restore physical possession to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession.[21] It is primarily a quieting process intended to provide an expeditious manner for protecting possession or right to possession without involvement of the title.[22] In Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. v. Booc,[23] the Court elucidated the purpose of actions for ejectment in this wise:Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a "time procedure" designed to remedy the situation. Stated in another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. And since the law discourages continued wrangling over possession of property for it involves perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly and carefully be avoided.[24] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is well settled that in ejectment suits, the only issue for resolution is the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. However, the issue of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.[10] | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [26] Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc. v. Adao, G.R. No. 158227, October 19, 2005, 473 SCRA 372, 380. | |||||