This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In ejectment cases, such as in forcible entry, the only question to be resolved is who between the contending parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by the parties-litigants.[30] In ejectment cases, possession means nothing more than actual physical possession (possession de facto),[31] it is not juridical possession (possession de jure), which gives the transferee a right over the thing that he may set up even against the owner.[32] Thus, "an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property."[33] | |||||
|
2015-04-06 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The petitioner, on the other hand, unequivocally dispensed his burden of proving that the respondents' occupation of Lot No. 299 was through the mere tolerance of his aunt Amelita. Tolerance must be shown by some overt act such as the permission accorded by the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest to occupy the disputed property in order for it to be well-taken. Mere tolerance always carries with it "permission" and not merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance.[44] It must also be shown "that the supposed acts of tolerance have been present right from the very start of the possession - from entry to the property." | |||||
|
2014-10-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To show that the possession was initially lawful, the basis of such lawful possession must then be established. With the averment here that the respondent's possession was by mere tolerance of the petitioner, the acts of tolerance must be proved, for bare allegation of tolerance did not suffice. At least, the petitioner should show the overt acts indicative of her or her predecessor's tolerance, or her co-heirs' permission for him to occupy the disputed property.[31] But she did not adduce such evidence. Instead, she appeared to be herself not clear and definite as to his possession of the disputed property being merely tolerated by Eliseo, as the following averment of her petition for review indicates: 6.9. Their ignorance of the said transaction of sale, particularly the petitioner, as they were not duly informed by the vendor-co[-]owner Eliseo Quijano, [led] them to believe that the respondent's occupancy of the subject premises was by mere tolerance of Eliseo, so that upon partition of the whole property, said occupancy continued to be under tolerance of the petitioner when the subject premises became a part of the land adjudicated to the latter;[32] (emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Carbonilla v. Abiera,[33] we denied the claim of petitioner that, as the owner of the land, he is likewise the owner of the building erected thereon, for his failure to present evidence to buttress his position: To set the record straight, while petitioner may have proven his ownership of the land, as there can be no other piece of evidence more worthy of credence than a Torrens certificate of title, he failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claim of ownership or right to the possession of the building. Like the CA, we cannot accept the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Residential Building) with Waiver and Quitclaim of Ownership executed by the Garcianos as proof that petitioner acquired ownership of the building. There is no showing that the Garcianos were the owners of the building or that they had any proprietary right over it. Ranged against respondents' proof of possession of the building since 1977, petitioner's evidence pales in comparison and leaves us totally unconvinced.[34] | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| "Ejectment cases - forcible entry and unlawful detainer - are summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable."[23] Thus, "an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property."[24] | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the sole issue in ejectment cases is physical or material possession of the subject property, independent of any claim of ownership by the parties.[38] The argument of respondent-spouses that they subsequently acquired ownership of the subject property cannot be considered as a supervening event that will bar the execution of the questioned judgment, as unlawful detainer does not deal with the issue of ownership. | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Instructive on this matter is Carbonilla v. Abiera,[23] which reads thus: Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is entitled to its possession. However, the owner cannot simply wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property. To recover possession, he must resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he is required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper. | |||||
|
2011-07-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Ejectment cases - forcible entry and unlawful detainer - are summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable. [13] In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties. Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. The adjudication is, however, merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property. [14] | |||||