Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. RAFAEL BENITEZ v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 156995 2015-01-12	RUBEN MANALANG v. BIENVENIDO BERSAMIN, J.
The CA held that considering that the petitioners' complaint for unlawful detainer did not set forth when and how the respondents had entered the land in question and constructed their houses thereon, jurisdiction did not vest in the MTC to try and decide the case; that the complaint, if at all, made out a case for either accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana, either of which fell within the original jurisdiction of the RTC; and that the RTC's reliance on Benitez v. Court of Appeals[16] and Calubayan v. Ferrer[17] was misplaced, because the controlling ruling was that in Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals,[18] in which the complaint was markedly similar to that filed in the case.
	GR No. 177847 2009-07-31	LAURENCE M. SISON v. EUSEBIA CARIAGA CARPIO MORALES, J.
On the appellate court's finding that the jurisdictional requirements to constitute a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer were not met, petitioner contends that the same is contrary to the ruling in Benitez vs. Court of Appeals[9] which held that, inter alia, an action for unlawful detainer is the proper remedy if the facts show that, after conducting a relocation survey, it is discovered that there has been an encroachment on a portion of the plaintiff's land by the defendant; notices to vacate were forthwith sent to the defendant; and the plaintiff files the suit within one year from last demand. Petitioner thus maintains that he had complied with these requirements.
	GR NO. 138088 2006-01-23	CAR COOL PHILIPPINES v. USHIO REALTY CARPIO, J.
There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit. Under Section 17 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, USHIO Realty has the legal right to receive some amount as reasonable compensation for CAR COOL's occupation of the property.[15] Thus, in Benitez v. Court of Appeals,[16] we held that:xxx Damages are recoverable in ejectment cases under Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. These damages arise from the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which private respondents may have suffered but which have no direct relation to their loss of material possession. Damages in the context of Section 8, Rule 70 is limited to "rent" or "fair market value" for the use and occupation of the property. The Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court assessed against CAR COOL the amount of P18,000 per month as reasonable compensation for CAR COOL's use of the property. Both trial courts held that the P18,000 monthly payment should run from October 1995 until CAR COOL vacates the property. The Court of Appeals sustained the P18,000 monthly rental but held that the start of payment should be from 19 December 1995 until CAR COOL vacates the property.
	GR No. 146364 2004-06-03	COLITO T. PAJUYO v. CA CARPIO, J.
Prior possession is not always a condition sine qua non in ejectment.[73] This is one of the distinctions between forcible entry and unlawful detainer.[74] In forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession of his land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. Thus, he must allege and prove prior possession.[75] But in unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to possess under any contract, express or implied. In such a case, prior physical possession is not required.[76]