Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170509 2012-06-27	VIEGELY SAMELO v. MANOTOK SERVICES BRION, J.
"An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied."[16] "The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved."[17] "Thus, when the relationship of lessor and lessee is established in an unlawful detainer case, any attempt of the parties to inject the question of ownership into the case is futile, except insofar as it might throw light on the right of possession."[18]
	GR No. 175687 2007-11-28	MATERRCO v. FIRST LANDLINK ASIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, in ejectment proceedings, trial courts may decide as an incident of the main issue of possession de facto the question of whether there is a lease contract between the parties, the period of such lease contract, and whether the lease contract has already expired.[15]
	GR NO. 156581 2005-09-30	VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO v. EMERENCIANA R. GUNGAB QUISUMBING, J.
In this case, the evidence showed that respondent has a Torrens Title over the land. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that respondent, as registered owner, is preferred to possess it. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[20] Except for petitioners' unsubstantiated claim that Victoria Arambulo is a co-owner of the property, they have not presented other justification for their continued stay thereon.
	AM No. MTJ-02-1459 2003-10-14	IMELDA Y. MADERADA v. JUDGE ERNESTO H. MEDIODEA PANGANIBAN, J.
The Rules of Court clearly provide that actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, regardless of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, shall be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. [23] These actions are summary in nature, because they involve the disturbance of the social order, which should be restored as promptly as possible. [24] Designed as special civil actions, they are governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure to disencumber the courts from the usual formalities of ordinary actions. [25] Accordingly, technicalities or details of procedure that may cause unnecessary delays should be carefully avoided. [26] The actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer are designed to provide expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. Both are "time procedures" designed to bring immediate relief. [27]