Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUDY LAO v. JAIME LAO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	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. 171315 2008-02-26	ANTONIO ARBIZO v. SPS. ANTONIO SANTILLAN and ROSARIO L. SANTILLAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Verily, in ejectment cases, the word "possession" means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession, in the sense contemplated in civil law. The only issue in such cases 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.[18] It does not even matter if the party's title to property is questionable.[19]
	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.
	GR NO. 140798 2006-09-19	MARCELITO D. QUEVADA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Such action has "for its object the recovery of the physical possession"[23] or determination of "who is entitled to possession de facto"[24] "of the leased premises (the house)[,] not the ownership of the lot"[25] and not its "legal possession, in the sense contemplated in civil law."[26] In fact, "any finding of the court regarding the issue of ownership is merely provisional and not conclusive."[27] The judgment rendered "shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be conclusive as to the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession."[28]