This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "The only issue in an ejectment case is the physical possession of real property possession de facto and not possession de jure."[45] But "[w]here the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property."[46] Here, both parties anchor their right to possess based on ownership, i.e., the spouses Dela Cruz by their own ownership while the spouses Capco by the ownership of Rufino as one of the heirs of the alleged true owner of the property. Thus, the MeTC and the RTC correctly passed upon the issue of ownership in this case to determine the issue of possession. However, it must be emphasized that "[t]he adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property."[47] | |||||
|
2011-07-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Perusing respondent's complaint, respondent clearly makes out a case for unlawful detainer, since petitioner's occupation of the subject property was by mere tolerance. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them. [19] | |||||