Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TINING RESUENA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175874 2013-12-11	HEIRS OF CIPRIANO TRAZONA v. HEIRS OF DIONISIO CAÑADA SERENO, C.J.
Dionisio was then well aware that this temporary arrangement may be terminated at any time. Respondents cannot now refuse to vacate the property or eventually demand reimbursement of necessary and useful expenses under Articles 448 and 546 of the New Civil Code, because the provisions apply only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof.[52] Persons who occupy land by virtue of tolerance of the owners are not possessors in good faith.[53] Thus, the directive of the RTC for respondents to demolish their residential house on Lot No. 5053-H was also proper.
	GR No. 182585 2009-11-27	JOSEPHINE MARMO v. MOISES O. ANACAY BRION, J.
We upheld in several cases the right of a co-owner to file a suit without impleading other co-owners, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. We made this ruling in Vencilao, where the amended complaint for "forcible entry and detainer" specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs who co-owns the disputed properties. In Sering, and Resuena v. Court of Appeals,[37] the co-owners who filed the ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive owners of the property. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago,[38] the complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in common.[39] In Plasabas, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint for recovery of title to property (accion reivindicatoria) that they are the sole owners of the property in litigation, but acknowledged during the trial that the property is co-owned with other parties, and the plaintiffs have been authorized by the co-owners to pursue the case on the latter's behalf.
	GR NO. 121989 2006-01-31	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. CA TINGA, J.
Prefatorily, findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this Court.[13] A deviation from this rule, however, is justified where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial court.[14] In the case at bar, the contradictory findings of the courts below necessitate our review of the factual issues.
	GR NO. 161916 2006-01-20	ARNELITO ADLAWAN v. EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The present controversy should be differentiated from the cases where the Court upheld the right of a co-owner to file a suit pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. In Resuena v. Court of Appeals,[32] and Sering v. Plazo,[33] the co-owners who filed the ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive owner of the property. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago,[34] the complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in common.[35] Similarly in Vencilao v. Camarenta,[36] the amended complaint specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs who co-owns the controverted properties.