This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Bereft of merit too is petitioners' argument that the Caloocan City MeTC cannot disregard the injunction order of the Quezon City RTC hearing the Annulment/Reversion case. The established rule is that a pending civil action for ownership such as annulment of title shall not ipso facto suspend an ejectment proceeding.[60] The Court explained that the rationale for this is that in an ejectment case, the issue is possession, while in an annulment case the issue is ownership.[61] In fact, an ejectment case can be tried apart from an annulment case.[62] Although there is an exception to this rule, petitioners failed to justify that this case falls within said exception. The words of the Court on this matter are instructive: In the absence of a concrete showing of compelling equitable reasons at least comparable and under circumstances analogous to Amagan, we cannot override the established rule that a pending civil action for ownership shall not ipso facto suspend an ejectment proceeding. Additionally, to allow a suspension on the basis of the reasons the petitioners presented in this case would create the dangerous precedent of allowing an ejectment suit to be suspended by an action filed in another court by parties who are not involved or affected by the ejectment suit.[63] (Emphases supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We recall in this regard that the MTC issued a pre-trial order identifying the issues of (1) who has the better right of possession; and (2) res judicata.[31] On the issue of possession, the MTC found the need to determine the question of title or ownership in passing upon the question of possession after Chavez raised the issue of ownership at that level. As a general rule in forcible entry cases, ownership or title is inconsequential; the primordial issue is possession de facto and not possession de jure. The court, however, may tackle the issue of ownership or title, if raised, if this issue is indispensable in resolving the issue of possession.[32] Since Chavez raised the question of ownership or title in his answer, the issue of ownership became a material consideration in the lower court's inquiry into the character, nature and extent of the parties' claimed possession. | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| And even assuming that he has, the same will not prevent the ejectment case filed by the respondent from taking its due course. A contract of sale entered into in violation of preemptive right is merely rescissible and the remedy of the aggrieved party whose right was violated is to file an appropriate action to rescind the sale and compel the owner to execute the necessary deed of sale in his favor. In Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[42] we categorically held that an action for unlawful detainer cannot be abated or suspended by an action filed by the defendant-lesseee to judicially enforce his right of preemption. | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| And in Wilmon Auto Supply Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[40] this Court made the following significant statement | |||||