This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-03-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Although respondent impugned the validity of petitioners' title over the property and claimed it to be his homelot, this assertion could not divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment cases.[14] The court could not be divested of jurisdiction over the ejectment cases on the mere allegation that the defendant asserts ownership over the litigated property.[15] Moreover, a pending action involving ownership of the same property does not bar the filing or consideration of an ejectment suit, nor suspend the proceedings.[16] The ejectment cases can proceed independently of the DARAB case. The underlying 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.[17] | |||||