Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF ALBINA G. AMPIL v. TERESA MANAHAN

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 189061 2014-08-06	MIDWAY MARITIME v. MARISSA E. CASTRO REYES, J.
As regards the ruling of the RTC of Cabanatuan City, Branch 26, in Civil Case No. 2939 (AF) that the advertised sale of the property included all the improvements thereon,[23] suffice it to say that said case involved an action for ejectment and any resolution by the RTC on the matter of the ownership of the improvements of the property is merely provisional and cannot surpass the Court's pronouncement in Castro and in the present case. The petitioner should be reminded that "in ejectment suits, the only issue for resolution is the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. However, the issue of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto."[24] The MTC and RTC's adjudication of ownership is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[25]
	GR No. 194538 2013-11-27	MORETO MIRALLOSA v. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT SERENO, C.J.
one-year prescriptive period imposed by the rules. It matters not whether there is an ownership issue that needs to be resolved, for as we have previously held, a determination of the matter would only be provisional. In Heirs of Ampil v. Manahan,[53] we said: In an unlawful detainer case, the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties, is the sole issue for resolution. But where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts may pass upon said issue in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however, is only an initial determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked thereto. As such, the lower court's adjudication of ownership in the ejectment case is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.