This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| An ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein judgment is binding only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard.[23] However, the rule admits of the exception that even a non-party is bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.[24] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam.[35] It is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only "between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action."[36] An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing.[37] Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard.[38] However, this rule admits of the exception, such that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.[39] | |||||