Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FLORENTINO GO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 178096 2011-03-23	ROSA DELOS REYES v. SPS. FRANCISCO ODONES NACHURA, J.
On February 19, 2007, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC, adding that, as pronounced in Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[19] in order to justify an action for unlawful detainer, the owner's permission or tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession.[20] Petitioner moved for reconsideration,[21] but the motion was denied in a Resolution dated May 22, 2007.[22] Hence, the instant petition[23] ascribing the following errors to the CA: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING THE CASE OF GO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS.
	GR No. 164110 2008-02-12	LEONOR B. CRUZ v. TEOFILA M. CATAPANG QUISUMBING, J.
The Court of Appeals held that there is no forcible entry because respondent's entry into the property was not through strategy or stealth due to the consent given to her by one of the co-owners. We cannot give our imprimatur to this sweeping conclusion. Respondent's entry into the property without the permission of petitioner could appear to be a secret and clandestine act done in connivance with co-owner Norma Maligaya whom respondent allowed to stay in her house. Entry into the land effected clandestinely without the knowledge of the other co-owners could be categorized as possession by stealth.[20] Moreover, respondent's act of getting only the consent of one co-owner, her sister Norma Maligaya, and allowing the latter to stay in the constructed house, can in fact be considered as a strategy which she utilized in order to enter into the co-owned property. As such, respondent's acts constitute forcible entry.
	GR NO. 169793 2006-09-15	VICTORIANO M. ENCARNACION v. NIEVES AMIGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that if petitioners are indeed the owners of the subject lot and were unlawfully deprived of their right of possession, they should present their claim before the regional trial court in an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, and not before the metropolitan trial court in a summary proceeding for unlawful detainer or forcible entry. For even if one is the owner of the property, the possession thereof cannot be wrested from another who had been in physical or material possession of the same for more than one year by resorting to a summary action for ejectment.[18] Hence, we agree with the Court of Appeals when it declared that:The respondent's actual entry on the land of the petitioner was in 1985 but it was only on March 2, 2001 or sixteen years after, when petitioner filed his ejectment case. The respondent should have filed an accion publiciana case which is under the jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the RTC should have not dismissed the case.
	GR NO. 156581 2005-09-30	VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO v. EMERENCIANA R. GUNGAB QUISUMBING, J.
What determines the cause of action is the nature of defendant's entry into the land. If the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed against the intruder within one year therefrom is forcible entry. If, on the other hand, the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal, the case is one of unlawful detainer which must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand.[16]
	GR No. 153652 2004-01-16	ALFREDO YASAY DEL ROSARIO v. SPS. JOSE E. MANUEL AND CONCORDIA MANUEL 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]