Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REY CARLO A. RIVERA v. VIRGILIO RIVERA

This case has been cited 11 times or more.

	GR No. 192268 2016-01-27	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. DELFINA C. CASIBANG PERALTA, J.
Case law teaches that those who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants will vacate the property upon demand.[37]
	GR No. 164402 2010-07-05	ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO 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]
	GR No. 150887 2009-08-14	FRANCISCO MADRID· v. SPS. BONIFACIO MAPOY AND FELICIDAD MARTINEZ 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]
	GR NO. 159292 2007-07-12	SPS. RICHARD B. PASCUAL AND CRISTINA D. PASCUAL v. SPS. REYNALDO P. CORONEL AND ASUNCION MALIG CORONEL 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.
	GR NO. 168414 2006-08-31	BENEDICTO S. AZCUETA v. LA UNION TOBACCO REDRYING CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that the only issue for resolution in forcible entry cases is material possession or possession de facto of the properties involved.[36] Moreover, said cases are summary in nature as to provide an expeditious means of protecting the right to possession of the property. In Joven v. Court of Appeals,[37] we held:The philosophy underlying this remedy is that irrespective of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence, or terror. In affording this remedy of restitution, the statute seeks to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder which might ensue from the withdrawal of the remedy. Another purpose is to discourage those persons who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property, resort to force rather than to some appropriate action in the courts to assert their claims.
	GR NO. 156581 2005-09-30	VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO v. EMERENCIANA R. GUNGAB QUISUMBING, J.
The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession.[17] But even if there was a claim of juridical possession or an assertion of ownership by the defendant, the MeTC may still take cognizance of the case. All that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.[18] Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only as it is necessary to decide the question of possession. The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[19]
	GR NO. 150755 2005-06-28	RENE GANILA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
While petitioners assert that this case involves only deprivation of possession, they confuse the remedy of an action for forcible entry with that of unlawful detainer. In unlawful detainer, prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not necessary. It is enough that plaintiff has a better right of possession. Actual, prior physical possession of a property by a party is indispensable only in forcible entry cases. In unlawful detainer cases, the defendant is necessarily in prior lawful possession of the property but his possession eventually becomes unlawful upon termination or expiration of his right to possess.[18] Thus, the fact that petitioners are in possession of the lot does not automatically entitle them to remain in possession. And the issue of prior lawful possession by the defendants does not arise at all in a suit for unlawful detainer, simply because prior lawful possession by virtue of contract or other reasons is given or admitted. Unlike in forcible entry where defendants, by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, deprive the plaintiff or the prior physical possessor of possession. Here there is no evidence to show that petitioners entered the lot by any of these acts.
	GR Nos. 154391-92 2004-09-30	SPS. ISMAEL AND TERESITA MACASAET v. SPS. VICENTE AND ROSARIO MACASAET PANGANIBAN, J.
This Court has consistently held that those who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants will vacate the property upon demand.[40] A summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy to enforce this implied obligation.[41] The unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted from the date of the demand to vacate.[42]
	GR No. 125088 2004-04-14	LAGRIMAS A. BOY v. CA AZCUNA, J.
The finding of the MeTC, sustained by the Court of Appeals, is that the continued occupation by petitioner of said property after the sale, without payment of rent, was by mere tolerance. Private respondents claimed that petitioner requested for time to vacate the premises and they agreed thereto because they did not need the property at that time. However, when private respondents were asked to vacate their rented residence, they demanded that petitioner vacate the subject property, but petitioner refused to do so. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[28]