This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, in Hualam Construction and Dev't. Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court expounded on what damages may be recovered in actions for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, to wit: As to damages, We have on several occasions ruled that since the only issue raised in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases is that of rightful physical possession, the "damages" recoverable in these cases are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, i.e., those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession. x x x Simply put, "damages" in the context of Section 8 of Rule 70 [now Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court] is limited to "rent" or "fair rental value" for the use and occupation of the property.[17] | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner herein invokes seasonably the exceptions to immediate execution of judgments in ejectment cases cited in Hualam Construction and Dev't. Corp. v. Court of Appeals[39] and Laurel v. Abalos,[40] thus:Where supervening events (occurring subsequent to the judgment) bring about a material change in the situation of the parties which makes the execution inequitable, or where there is no compelling urgency for the execution because it is not justified by the prevailing circumstances, the court may stay immediate execution of the judgment.[41] Noteworthy, the foregoing exceptions were made in reference to Section 8,[42] Rule 70 of the old Rules of Court which has been substantially reproduced as Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, even if the appealing defendant was not able to file a supersedeas bond, and make periodic deposits to the appellate court, immediate execution of the MTC decision is not proper where the circumstances of the case fall under any of the above-mentioned exceptions. Yet, Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules does not provide for a procedure to avert immediate execution of an RTC decision. | |||||