This case has been cited 18 times or more.
|
2010-10-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The only issue in an ejectment case is the physical possession of real property â€' possession de facto and not possession de jure. We rule upon the issue of ownership only to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession. As the law now stands, in an ejectment suit, the question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.[17] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.[21] However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[22] The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of ownership.[23] | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| An action for reconveyance or accion reivindicatoria has no effect and can exist at the same time as ejectment cases involving the same property.[9] This is because the only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved.[10] Ejectment cases are designed to summarily restore physical possession 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.[11] The question of ownership may only be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.[12] | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.[13] However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between or among the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[14] The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of ownership.[15] | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The core issue in the petition for certiorari with the CA was the alleged exercise of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in dismissing petitioner's notice of appeal. When the CA denied the said petition for being filed out of time, petitioner sought relief before this Court through the instant petition for review. However, a perusal of the petition before Us would readily show that the petitioner is now suddenly questioning not only the CA's order of dismissal, but also the determination of the amount of just compensation by the RTC, which is a question of fact. This requires a review of the evidence presented by the parties before the trial court. It is aphoristic that this kind of reexamination cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, because this Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law. The Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.[63] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, it may not be amiss to note that in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised for the simple reason that the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when adopted and affirmed by the Court of Appeals as in the present case, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[33] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is apodictic that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant's possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so upon the expiration of his right to possess. Hence, the phrase "unlawful withholding" has been held to imply possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant.[27] | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We emphasize that our disquisition in this case is provisional and only to the extent necessary to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession.[24] In an appropriate proceeding before the court having jurisdiction, petitioner may still have the sale of the subject property to respondents annulled, and the latter's title cancelled if petitioner's case is truly meritorious. | |||||
|
2007-07-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. If he claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of his opponent.[24] And he, having the burden of proof, will be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.[25] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.[17] However, where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine who has the right to possess the property.[18] We stress, however, that this adjudication is only an initial determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked thereto. The lower court's adjudication of ownership in the ejectment case is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[19] It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of ownership,[20] which is the subject matter of a separate case for annulment of deeds of sale filed by respondent. | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent petitioner's claim that she is the owner of another house located at 1191 P. Zapanta, Singalong, Manila, the same must similarly fail. Aside from the self-serving statement that she owns the house, petitioner merely presented a Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System Official Water Receipt[64] dated December 7, 1979, a water installation Receipt[65] dated August 22, 1979, and a Manila Electric Company (Meralco) Warrant[66] to purchase a stock of Meralco Securities Corporation dated December 24, 1975, all in her name, to establish her claim. Suffice it to state, petitioner's evidence does not meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish that she is the rightful owner of the aforesaid house. At best, they prove that she resided in the aforesaid house sometime in the 1970s or long before she filed the subject complaint on August 25, 1989. Basic is the rule that in civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish her case by a preponderance of evidence. If she claims a right granted or created by law, she must prove her claim by competent evidence. She must rely on the strength of her own evidence and not on the weakness of that of her opponent.[67] This, petitioner failed to do. | |||||
|
2007-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is aphoristic that a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because as earlier stated, this Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law.[45] The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.[46] This is already outside the province of the instant Petition for Certiorari. While there may be exceptions to this rule, petitioners miserably failed to show why the exceptions should be applied here. With greater force must this rule be applied in the instant case where the factual findings of the Med-Arbiter were affirmed by the BLR Director, and then, finally, by the Court of Appeals. The findings below had sufficient bases both in fact and in law. The uniform conclusion was that private respondents Daya, et al., were wrongfully disqualified by the COMELEC; consequently, the FLAMES election should be annulled. | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him. To repeat, the only issue that the court has to settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession.[22] (Emphasis supplied) It is also well settled that in civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. If the plaintiff claims a right granted or created by law, the same must be proven by competent evidence. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of his opponent.[23] In the present case, it devolved upon respondent to show by preponderance of evidence that she was illegally deprived of possession of the property subject of the forcible entry case for her to obtain judgment in her favor.[24] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
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] | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, petitioner would have us delve into the factual issues of the case. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court, and in the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand.[19] This Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. Petitioner has not given us ample reasons to depart from this general rule.[20] | |||||
|
2005-11-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it should be emphasized that in a case for ejectment, any finding of the court regarding the issue of ownership is merely provisional and not conclusive. This was stressed in Umpoc vs. Mercado,[8] where the Court stated:... we emphasize that our disquisition on the issue of ownership in ejectment cases, as in the case at bar, is only provisional to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of ownership, which is the subject matter of a separate case of annulment of title filed by respondent. x x x As the law now stands, in an ejectment suit, the question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto. [9] | |||||
|
2005-10-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, this case started with a complaint for ejectment filed with the MeTC. In previous cases, this Court consistently held that 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.[12] Ejectment cases are designed to summarily restore physical possession 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.[13] We also said that the question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.[14] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Needless to stress, the burden of proof in civil cases is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. If he claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of his opponent.[43] In this case, Almendrala spouses failed to show sufficient proof of their entitlement to the right of pre-emption or redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code and, therefore, have no enforceable legal right to speak of. | |||||