This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-01-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the finality of the March 28, 2006 decision with respect to possession de facto cannot be affected by the pendency of the annulment case where the ownership of the property is being contested. [16] We are inclined to adhere to settled jurisprudence that suits involving ownership may not be successfully pleaded in abatement of the enforcement of the final decision in an ejectment suit. The rationale of the rule has been explained in this wise: This rule is not without good reason. If the rule were otherwise, ejectment cases could easily be frustrated through the simple expedient of filing an action contesting the ownership over the property subject of the controversy. This would render nugatory the underlying philosophy of the summary remedy of ejectment which is to prevent criminal disorder and breaches of the peace and to discourage those who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property, resort to force rather than to some appropriate action in court to assert their claims. [17] | |||||