This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Thus, under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the complaint must be filed "within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession" and must allege that: (a) the defendant originally had lawful possession of the property, either by virtue of a contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) eventually, the defendant's possession of the property became illegal or unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to defendant of the expiration or the termination of the defendant's right of possession; (c) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and (d) within one (1) year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.[19] | |||||
|
2013-12-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Metropolitan Trial Courts are conditionally vested with authority to resolve the question of ownership raised as an incident in an ejectment case where the determination is essential to a complete adjudication of the issue of possession.[30] Concomitant to the ejectment court's authority to look into the claim of ownership for purposes of resolving the issue of possession is its authority to interpret the contract or agreement upon which the claim is premised. Thus, in the case of Oronce v. CA,[31] wherein the litigants' opposing claims for possession was hinged on whether their written agreement reflected the intention to enter into a sale or merely an equitable mortgage, the Court affirmed the propriety of the ejectment court's examination of the terms of the agreement in question by holding that, "because metropolitan trial courts are authorized to look into the ownership of the property in controversy in ejectment cases, it behooved MTC Branch 41 to examine the bases for petitioners' claim of ownership that entailed interpretation of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage."[32] Also, in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Maunlad Homes, Inc.[33] (Union Bank), citing Sps. Refugia v. CA,[34] the Court declared that MeTCs have authority to interpret contracts in unlawful detainer cases, viz.:[35] | |||||
|
2013-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This petition involves an action for unlawful detainer, which is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in an unlawful detainer case is originally legal but becomes illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.[6] The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.[7] When the defendant, however, raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.[8] | |||||