This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Therefore, respondents failed to discharge their burden of proving the element of prior physical possession. Their uncorroborated claim of that fact, even if made under oath, is self-serving. It does not amount to preponderant evidence, which simply means that which is of greater weight or is more convincing than evidence that is offered in opposition.[32] | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Indeed, possession in ejectment cases "means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law."[25] In a forcible entry case, "prior physical possession is the primary consideration[.]"[26] "A party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him."[27] "[T]he party in peaceable, quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence, or terror."[28] | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Notably, even public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases as it has already been held that ejectment proceedings may involve all kinds of land.[35] Thus, in the case at bench, while the parties are fighting over the possession of a government land, the courts below are not deprived of jurisdiction to render judgment thereon.[36] Courts must resolve the issue of possession even if the parties to the ejectment suit are mere informal settlers.[37] | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Hence, in the face of Reputable's contrary admission as to the nature of its own business, what was stated by Philippines First in its complaint is reduced to nothing more than mere allegation, which must be proved for it to be given any weight or value. The settled rule is that mere allegation is not proof.[26] | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to respondents' supposed failure to allege facts constitutive of forcible entry, it is settled that in actions for forcible entry, two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction.[14] First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property.[15] Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court, namely, force, intimidation, threats, strategy, and stealth.[16] | |||||
|
2011-04-11 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| For these reasons, the Court finds that Servillano utterly failed to prove prior physical possession in his favor. The absence of prior physical possession by the plaintiff in a forcible entry warrants the dismissal of the complaint.[40] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings only intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property.[43] The sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[44] The Court sustains the Decision of the Court of Appeals that respondents are entitled to the possession of the subject property as they are found to be the ones in actual possession of the property after it was sold to them by the registered owners, Emilio and Pilar Torres. The issue of the validity of the title of respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[45] Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529[46] specifically states that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack, and that it cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. | |||||