Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SALUD D. LOPEZ v. ROBERT P. DAVID JR.

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 195477 2016-01-15	SPS. HERMINIO E. ERORITA AND EDITHA C. ERORITA v. SPS. LIGAYA DUMLAO AND ANTONIO DUMLAO BRION, J.
As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, or even for the first time on appeal.[12] An exception to this rule is the principle of estoppel by laches.[13]
	GR No. 182754 2015-06-29	SPS. CRISPIN AQUINO v. SPS. EUSEBIO AGUILAR SERENO, C.J.
With respect to the award of actual damages to petitioners, we find no reason to reverse or modify the ruling of the CA. This Court has consistently held that those who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, even without any contract between them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants would vacate the property upon demand.[70] Failure to comply with this demand renders the possession unlawful and actual damages may be awarded to the owner from the date of the demand to vacate[71] until the actual surrender of the property.
	GR No. 160239 2009-11-25	ANGELINA SORIENTE v. ESTATE OF LATE ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
The Complaint alleged that petitioner occupied the subject property by tolerance of the late Arsenio Concepcion. While tolerance is lawful, such possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.[29] Respondent sent petitioner a demand letter dated September 22, 2000 to vacate the subject property, but petitioner did not comply with the demand. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[30] Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the one-year period within which a complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should be counted from the date of demand, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful.[31] Respondent filed the ejectment case against petitioner on April 27, 2001, which was less than a year from the date of formal demand. Clearly, therefore, the action was filed within the one-year period prescribed for filing an ejectment or unlawful detainer case.
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is settled that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court.[22]
	GR NO. 169793 2006-09-15	VICTORIANO M. ENCARNACION v. NIEVES AMIGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Well settled is the rule that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[15] On its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.[16]
	GR NO. 132424 2006-05-04	SPS. BONIFACIO R. VALDEZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year.[12] It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title.[13] In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of the forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. On the other hand, accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding.[14]
	GR NO. 168464 2006-01-23	ZENAIDA RAMOS-BALALIO v. ROLANDO RAMOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
An accion publiciana is an action for the recovery of the right to possess and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. [16] In this case, the issue is whether Zenaida, as an applicant for public land, may be considered as having any right to the land occupied, which may entitle her to sue in courts for the return of the possession thereof.
	GR NO. 165177 2005-08-25	LILIA V. PERALTA-LABRADOR v. SILVERIO BUGARIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Lopez v. David Jr.,[13] it was held that an action for forcible entry is a quieting process and the one year time bar for filing a suit is in pursuance of the summary nature of the action. Thus, we have nullified proceedings in the MTCs when it improperly assumed jurisdiction of a case in which the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession had exceeded one year. After the lapse of the one year period, the suit must be commenced in the RTC via an accion publiciana, a suit for recovery of the right to possess. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty independently of title. Likewise, the case may be instituted before the same court as an accion reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as well as possession.[14]
	GR Nos. 154391-92 2004-09-30	SPS. ISMAEL AND TERESITA MACASAET v. SPS. VICENTE AND ROSARIO MACASAET PANGANIBAN, J.
To show a cause of action in an unlawful detainer, an allegation that the defendant is illegally withholding possession from the plaintiff is sufficient. The complaint may lie even if it does not employ the terminology of the law, provided the said pleading is couched in a language adequately stating that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate has become unlawful.[32] It is equally settled that the jurisdiction of the court, as well as the nature of the action, is determined from the averments of the complaint.[33]