This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The pronouncement in Co v. Militar was later reiterated in Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel[20] and in Spouses Barias v. Heirs of Bartolome Boneo, et al.,[21] wherein we consistently held the age-old rule "that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof."[22] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This notwithstanding, the determination made herein as regards petitioner's ownership of the lot by virtue of TCT No. 392430 is only prima facie and only for purposes of resolving the issue of physical possession. These pronouncements are without prejudice to the case of annulment of the deed of sale and TCT filed by respondents against petitioner.[33] Lastly, these pronouncements are not binding on respondents Noemi Otales and Gregorio Ramirez over whose persons no jurisdiction was acquired by the MTC.[34] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The sole issue for resolution 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. Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. The adjudication is, however, merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[11] Since the issue of ownership was raised in the unlawful detainer case, its resolution boils down to which of the parties' respective evidence deserves more weight. | |||||