This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have ruled that a party who has prior physical possession, regardless of the character of his possession, can recover possession even against the owner of the property.[27] The law protects the party in peaceful, quiet possession from being thrown out by a strong hand, terror or violence;[28] such party is entitled to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right.[29] | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The appellate court correctly ruled that even if the complaint filed with the RTC involves a question of ownership, the MTC still has jurisdiction because the assessed value of the whole lot as stated in Tax Declaration No. 09-0742 is P4,890.[29] The MTC cannot be deprived of jurisdiction over an ejectment case based merely on the assertion of ownership over the litigated property, and the underlying reason for this rule is to prevent any party from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit.[30] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Sudaria v. Quiambao,[8] the Court held that: Ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is not involved. The sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto. On this point, the pronouncements in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals are enlightening, thus: | |||||