This case has been cited 3 times or more.
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
In ejectment cases, such as in forcible entry, the only question to be resolved is who between the contending parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by the parties-litigants.[30] In ejectment cases, possession means nothing more than actual physical possession (possession de facto),[31] it is not juridical possession (possession de jure), which gives the transferee a right over the thing that he may set up even against the owner.[32] Thus, "an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property."[33] | |||||
2013-07-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
Similarly, in Arbizo v. Santillan,[32] it has been held that the acts of unlawfully entering the disputed premises, erecting a structure thereon, and excluding therefrom the prior possessor would necessarily imply the use of force, as in this case. | |||||
2010-02-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
Petitioners' argument is misplaced, considering that this is a forcible entry case. They are apparently referring to "possession" flowing from ownership of the property, as opposed to actual possession. In ejectment cases, possession means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[17] |