This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-10-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| An ejectment case can be either for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. It is a summary proceeding designed to provide expeditious means to protect the actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved.[19] The sole question for resolution in the case is the physical or material possession (possession de facto) of the property in question, and neither a claim of juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership by the defendant can outrightly deprive the trial court from taking due cognizance of the case. Hence, even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, like here, the court may pass upon the issue but only to determine the question of possession especially if the question of ownership is inseparably linked with the question of possession.[20] The adjudication of ownership in that instance is merely provisional, and will not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving the title to the property.[21] | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As found by the trial court, petitioner's possession of the land was by mere tolerance of the respondents. We have held in a number of cases that one whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant occupant the moment he is required to leave.[5] He is bound by his implied promise, in the absence of a contract, that he will vacate upon demand.[6] | |||||