Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONARDO R. OCAMPO v. LEONORA TIRONA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170509 2012-06-27	VIEGELY SAMELO v. MANOTOK SERVICES BRION, J.
At any rate, we hold that no need exists to resolve the issue of ownership in this case, since it is not required to determine the issue of possession; the execution of the lease contract between the petitioner, as lessee, and the respondent, as lessor, belies the former's claim of ownership. We reiterate that the fact of the lease and the expiration of its term are the only elements in an action for unlawful detainer. "The defense of ownership does not change the summary nature of [this] action. x x x. Although a wrongful possessor may at times be upheld by the courts, this is merely temporary and solely for the maintenance of public order. The question of ownership is to be settled in the proper court and in a proper action."[28]
	GR No. 136409 2008-03-14	SUBHASH C. PASRICHA and JOSEPHINE A. PASRICHA v. DON LUIS DISON REALTY NACHURA, J.
Unlawful detainer cases are summary in nature. In such cases, the elements to be proved and resolved are the fact of lease and the expiration or violation of its terms.[48] Specifically, the essential requisites of unlawful detainer are: 1) the fact of lease by virtue of a contract, express or implied; 2) the expiration or termination of the possessor's right to hold possession; 3) withholding by the lessee of possession of the land or building after the expiration or termination of the right to possess; 4) letter of demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises; and 5) the filing of the action within one year from the date of the last demand received by the defendant.[49]
	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. 166714 2007-02-09	AMELIA S. ROBERTS v. MARTIN B. PAPIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The summary nature of the action is not changed by the claim of ownership of the property of the defendant.[47] The MeTC is not divested of its jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action simply because the defendant asserts ownership over the property.