This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Admittedly, the lease contract of Verutiao and the Municipality expired on January 13, 1997 without having been renewed, and petitioner Mayor ordered Verutiao to vacate the stall, also for her failure to pay the rent amounting to P2,532.00. Under Section 44 of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1999, the stall is considered vacant and shall be disposed of. However, petitioner had to file an action for unlawful detainer against Verutiao to recover possession of her stall and cause her eviction from said premises.[35] Verutiao insisted on her right to remain as lessee of her stall and to do business thereat. Such action is designed to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder and prevent those believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property resort to force to gain possession rather than to secure appropriate action in the court to assert their claims.[36] It was incumbent upon petitioner Mayor to institute an action for the eviction of Verutiao. He cannot be permitted to invade the property and oust the lessee who is entitled to the actual possession and to place the burden upon the latter of instituting an action to try the property right.[37] | |||||
|
2001-10-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. It cannot be inferred from the aforecited phrase that the possession that petitioners were supposedly deprived of is a prior physical possession. The question arises, what sort of prior physical possession is to be averred? The word "possession" as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, means nothing more than physical possession, (stress supplied) not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[10] The allegation must likewise show priority in time. Both requisites are wanting in the phrase relied upon by petitioners. | |||||