Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. RICHARD B. PASCUAL AND CRISTINA D. PASCUAL v. SPS. REYNALDO P. CORONEL AND ASUNCION MALIG CORONEL

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 175990 2012-10-11	HEIRS OF ALBINA G. AMPIL v. TERESA MANAHAN MENDOZA, J.
In an unlawful detainer case, the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties, is the sole issue for resolution. But where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts may pass upon said issue in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however, is only an initial determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked thereto. As such, 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.[29]
	GR No. 169055 2012-02-22	SPS. JOSE AND MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The issue of the genuineness of a deed of sale is essentially a question of fact. It is settled that this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. This is especially true where the trial court's factual findings are adopted and affirmed by the CA as in the present case. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[23]
	GR No. 183822 2012-01-18	RUBEN C. CORPUZ v. SPS. HILARION AGUSTIN AND JUSTA AGUSTIN SERENO, J.
The pronouncement in Co v. Militar was later reiterated in Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel[20] and in Spouses Barias v. Heirs of Bartolome Boneo, et al.,[21] wherein we consistently held the age-old rule "that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof."[22]
	GR No. 165851 2011-02-02	MANUEL CATINDIG v. AURORA IRENE VDA. DE MENESES PERALTA, J.
The issue on the genuineness of the deed of sale is essentially a question of fact. It is settled that this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. This is especially true where the trial court's factual findings are adopted and affirmed by the CA as in the present case. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[5]
	GR No. 164402 2010-07-05	ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the present case, there is no dispute that petitioner is the holder of a Torrens title over the entire Lot 83. Respondents have only their notarized but unregistered Kasulatan sa Bilihan to support their claim of ownership. Thus, even if respondents' proof of ownership has in its favor a juris tantum presumption of authenticity and due execution, the same cannot prevail over petitioner's Torrens title. This has been our consistent ruling which we recently reiterated in Pascual v. Coronel,[28] viz: Even if we sustain the petitioners' arguments and rule that the deeds of sale are valid contracts, it would still not bolster the petitioners' case. In a number of cases, the Court had upheld the registered owners' superior right to possess the property. In Co v. Militar, the Court was confronted with a similar issue of which between the certificate of title and an unregistered deed of sale should be given more probative weight in resolving the issue of who has the better right to possess. There, the Court held that the court a quo correctly relied on the transfer certificate of title in the name of petitioner, as opposed to the unregistered title in the name of respondents. The Court stressed therein that the Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized.
	GR No. 166941 2009-12-14	SPS. DENNIS BARIAS AND DIVINA BARIAS v. BONEO CARPIO MORALES, 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.[16] Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to determine who has the right to possess the property.[17] The adjudication is, however, merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[18]
	GR No. 163053 2009-11-25	AGRIFINA PANGANIBAN v. SPS. ROMEO ROLDAN AND ELIZABETH ROLDAN NACHURA, J.
In unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases, the only issue to be determined is who between the contending parties has the better right to possess the contested property, independent of any claim of ownership. However, where the issue of ownership is so intertwined with the issue of possession, the courts may pass upon the issue of ownership if only to determine who has the better right to possess the property.[13]
	GR No. 164213 2009-04-21	VALENTIN CABRERA v. ELIZABETH GETARUELA CARPIO, 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. 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. 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. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of ownership x x x.[16]