Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164110 2008-02-12	LEONOR B. CRUZ v. TEOFILA M. CATAPANG QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner's filing of a complaint for forcible entry, in our view, was within the one-year period for filing the complaint. The one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry to the land. However, when entry is made through stealth, then the one-year period is counted from the time the petitioner learned about it.[21] Although respondent constructed her house in 1992, it was only in September 1995 that petitioner learned of it when she visited the property. Accordingly, she then made demands on respondent to vacate the premises. Failing to get a favorable response, petitioner filed the complaint on January 25, 1996, which is within the one-year period from the time petitioner learned of the construction.
	GR NO. 171277 2007-02-15	ALMARIO BEJAR v. MARICEL CALUAG SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
To make out a suit for illegal detainer or forcible entry, the complaint must contain two mandatory allegations: (1) prior physical possession of the property by the plaintiff; and (2) deprivation of said possession by another by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.[8] This latter requirement implies that the possession of the disputed property by the intruder has been unlawful from the very start. Then, the action must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry to the property or, in cases where stealth was employed, from the date the plaintiff learned about it.[9]
	GR NO. 168414 2006-08-31	BENEDICTO S. AZCUETA v. LA UNION TOBACCO REDRYING CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even granting for the sake of argument that the change in management was a supervening event, it has been declared void in Civil Case No. 01-99719 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 46 which has jurisdiction over the same as it involves a dispute among stockholders of the corporation. To write finis to the controversy, we deem it necessary to take judicial notice of the proceedings therein. It has been held that a court may consult decisions in other proceedings, in order to look for the law that is determinative of or applicable to the case under review. In some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases "may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke" a rule of judicial notice.[38]
	GR NO. 165177 2005-08-25	LILIA V. PERALTA-LABRADOR v. SILVERIO BUGARIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Lopez v. David Jr.,[13] it was held that an action for forcible entry is a quieting process and the one year time bar for filing a suit is in pursuance of the summary nature of the action. Thus, we have nullified proceedings in the MTCs when it improperly assumed jurisdiction of a case in which the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession had exceeded one year. After the lapse of the one year period, the suit must be commenced in the RTC via an accion publiciana, a suit for recovery of the right to possess. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty independently of title. Likewise, the case may be instituted before the same court as an accion reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as well as possession.[14]