This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Then again, in Manila Electric Company v. Heirs of Deloy,[27] the Court held:At any rate, it is fundamental that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. It bears to emphasize that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession. Thus, the Court must uphold the age-old rule that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to its possession. In Pascual v. Coronel, the Court reiterated the rule that a certificate of title has a superior probative value as against that of an unregistered deed of sale in ejectment cases.[28] | |||||
|
2013-12-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| What is determinative of the nature of the action and the court with jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, not the defenses set up in an answer.[27] A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites that: (a) initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (c) thereafter, defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (d) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.[28] Corollarily, the only issue to be resolved 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 involved.[29] | |||||