This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| For the action to come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, therefore, the complaint must allege that: (a) the defendant originally had lawful possession of the property, either by virtue of a contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) the defendant's possession of the property eventually became illegal or unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the expiration or the termination of the defendant's right of possession; (c) the defendant thereafter remained in possession of the property and thereby deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and (d) the plaintiff instituted the action within one year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.[31] | |||||
|
2014-03-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The CA intimated in its assailed Decision that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the spouses Dela Cruz' Complaint for ejectment since the same failed to describe how the spouses Capco's entry to the property was effected or how and when the dispossession started, as held in Go and Melchor. Such a requirement, however, does not apply in this case. The Court has already clarified in Delos Reyes v. Odones[35] that: The requirement that the complaint should aver, as jurisdictional facts, when and how entry into the property was made by the defendants applies only when the issue is the timeliness of the filing of the complaint before the MTC x x x. This is because, in forcible entry cases, the prescriptive period is counted from the date of defendants' actual entry into the property; whereas, in unlawful detainer cases, it is counted from date of the last demand to vacate. Hence, to determine whether the case was filed on time, there is a necessity to ascertain whether the complaint is one for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer; and since the main distinction between the two actions is when and how defendant entered the property, the determinative facts should be alleged in the complaint.[36] | |||||
|
2012-08-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| within one year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.[17] | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes,[62] the Court recently defined the nature and scope of an unlawful detainer suit, as follows: Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||