This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have ruled that a party who has prior physical possession, regardless of the character of his possession, can recover possession even against the owner of the property.[27] The law protects the party in peaceful, quiet possession from being thrown out by a strong hand, terror or violence;[28] such party is entitled to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right.[29] | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. These are acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession. Examples of these are donations, succession, execution and registration of public instruments, inscription of possessory information titles and the like.[33] The reason for this exceptional rule is that possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.[34] It is sufficient that petitioner was able to subject the property to the action of his will.[35] Here, respondent failed to show that he falls under any of these circumstances. He could not even say that the subject property was leased to him except that he promised that he would vacate it if petitioner would be able to show the boundaries of the titled lot. | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In ejectment cases, the only issue for resolution is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants. The one who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself.[15] Possession de facto is the physical possession of real property. Possession de facto and not possession de jure is the only issue in a forcible entry case.[16] This rule holds true regardless of the character of a party's possession, provided, that he has in his favor priority of time which entitles him to stay on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.[17] | |||||
|
2007-07-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We acknowledge that these allegations of respondent may, in the appropriate forum, merit a bona fide consideration; however, we are not inclined to rule on these contentions inasmuch as this Court is not the proper forum before which these issues may be ventilated. Needless to say, the long settled rule is that the issue of ownership or title to property cannot be collaterally attacked. Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1529 materially provides that a certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. Issues as to the validity of title to property can be assailed only in an action expressly instituted for that specific purpose[37] either in an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. A proceeding for forcible entry, which by nature is an accion interdictal, is merely a quieting process and never determines actual title to an estate.[38] | |||||
|
2007-07-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is hornbook doctrine that in an ejectment case, it is not the prime function of the courts to resolve questions relating to title to or ownership of the property in litigation. What is involved in ejectment cases is merely the issue of material or physical possession (possession de facto) independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants,[39] such that any one of them who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself regardless of the character of such possession provided that he has in his favor priority in time.[40] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Somodio v. Court of Appeals,[22] which the Spouses Dela Rosa cited, the petitioner there began construction of a structure on his lot. His employment, however, took him to Kidapawan, North Cotabato, and he left the unfinished structure to the care of his uncle. He would visit the property every three months or on weekends when he had time. The Court ruled that possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession.[23] There is no cogent reason to deviate from this doctrine. | |||||