This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proof of possession.[33] They are merely good indicia of possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[34] It bears emphasizing that the word "possession," as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[35] When the law speaks of possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession de jure.[36] Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue.[37] Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[38] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After carefully examining the averments of the petitioners' complaint and the character of the reliefs sought therein,[13] we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that the complaint was for forcible entry, and that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed it. | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint.[43] In actions for forcible entry, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: First, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property. Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[44] To effect the ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the land, the complaint should embody such a statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.[45] | |||||
|
2005-09-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The unlawful activities by the defendants and their refusal to stop despite demand prompted plaintiff to send them demand letter dated October 1, 1997, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "G", but in spite of the receipt of said letter, the defendants ignored it and continued in their activities dispossessing plaintiff of its peaceful possession over the property. In fact, the defendants even proceeded in laying the foundation of the construction of a building as shown in the photographs hereto attached as Annex "H".[16] In actions for forcible entry, it may be stressed, two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction. First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property. Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, namely, force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth.[17] If the alleged dispossession did not occur by any of these means, the proper recourse is to file not an action for forcible entry but a plenary action to recover possession with the Regional Trial Court.[18] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Identity of the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment, which may be rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata on the action under consideration.[30] | |||||
|
2005-06-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, forum shopping exists when both actions involve the same transactions, with the same essential facts and circumstances; and where identical causes of actions, subject matter and issues are raised. The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[12] The requisites in order that an action may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia are (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[13] Such requisites are not present in this controversy. | |||||
|
2004-11-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Forum-shopping is a very serious charge. It exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.[67] It may also consist in the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court might look with favor upon the other party.[68] To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum-shopping, the test applied is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[69] Forum-shopping constitutes improper conduct and may be punished with summary dismissal of the multiple petitions and direct contempt of court.[70] | |||||