This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independent of title. It 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.[34] | |||||
|
2014-06-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In contrast, [petitioner's] lease of the second floor since 1966 clearly qualified her as a "beneficiary" under the ZIP Guideline Circular No. 1 which employs the term to refer to those who permanently reside in the project site either as owners of residential structures or renters/sharers thereof before August 15, 1975 up to the time that the area has been adopted as a slum-upgrading site. Unlike [respondents] who immediately availed of the opportunity they were afforded to purchase their own residential lot, however, it appears that [petitioner] demurred when the NHA offered her the chance of buying Lot 17, Block [7] of the Hulo Estate until December [19], 1987. On this score alone, we find that [petitioner] cannot be presently heard to complain that she had been unjustifiably deprived of her right as a qualified beneficiary under the aforesaid program. | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' attack on the legality of TCT No. T-43927, issued in the name of respondents, is incidental to their quest to defend their possession of the property in an accion publiciana, not in a direct action whose main objective is to impugn the validity of the judgment granting the title.[14] To permit a collateral attack on the title, such as what petitioners attempt, would reduce the vaunted legal indefeasibility of a Torrens title to meaningless verbiage.[15] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Here, Jose Vicente and Young mainly argued in their Motion to Dismiss that inasmuch as the subject property is in the name of A.G. Agro, the nature of the claim or controversy is one of intra-corporate. The Court has ruled in the past that an action to recover possession is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better and legal right to possess, independently of title.[3] But where the parties raise the issue of ownership, as in this case, the courts may pass upon such issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however, is not final and binding as regards the issue of ownership; it is merely for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession when it is inseparably connected to the issue of ownership. The adjudication on the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[4] Also, any intra-corporate issues that may be involved in determining the real owner of the property may be threshed out in a separate proceeding in the proper commercial court. | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Besides, it must be emphasized that this case is one for recovery of possession, also known as accion publiciana, which is a plenary action for recovery of possession in an ordinary civil proceeding, in order to determine the better and legal right to possess, independently of title.[10] The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[11] | |||||