This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, according to Article 256[29] of the Family Code, the provisions of the Family Code may apply retroactively provided no vested rights are impaired. In Tumlos v. Fernandez,[30] the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Family Code did not apply because the acquisition of the contested property had occurred prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, and pointed out that Article 256 provided that the Family Code could apply retroactively if the application would not prejudice vested or acquired rights existing before the effectivity of the Family Code. Herein, however, the petitioners did not show any vested right in the property acquired prior to August 3, 1988 that exempted their situation from the retroactive application of the Family Code. | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that in unlawful detainer cases, the only issue for resolution, independent of any claim of ownership by any party litigant, is: who is entitled to the physical and material possession of the property involved? The mere fact that defendant raises the defense of ownership of the property in the pleadings does not deprive the MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the case. In cases where defendant raises the question of ownership in the pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the court may proceed and resolve the issue of ownership but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession. However, the disposition of the issue of ownership is not final, as it may be the subject of separate proceeding specifically brought to settle the issue. Hence, the bare fact that petitioners, in their answer to the complaint, raised the issue of whether they owned the property as trustors of a constructive trust (with the spouses Dulay as the trustees), did not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and decide the same on its merits.[30] | |||||