This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Respondents cite Solanda Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[59] It involves an action for ejectment filed by the vendee of a parcel of land against the vendor's lessees on the property. In turn, the lessees filed an action for annulment of the sale of the property between the vendor and vendee on the ground that the sale violated their [lessees'] preemptive rights over the property as guaranteed under P.D. No. 1517. The Court held that the action for ejectment may proceed independently of the action for annulment, citing the following reason:xxx the consistent case law is that ejectment suits deal only with the issue of physical possession. The pendency of an action for the annulment of the sale and the reconveyance of the disputed property may not be successfully pleaded in abatement of an action for ejectment. Private respondent's alleged right of possession is conditioned on his right to acquire ownership over the land. His right of the possession is, at best, only inchoate. In any event, the private respondent's expectation of being granted the preemptive right to purchase the property neither establishes his right to possess nor justifies the dismissal of the ejectment case against him. [Emphasis added.] | |||||
|
2005-11-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto.[47] In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.[48] It is also settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is determining who is entitled to the physical possession of the property.[49] Indeed, any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself[50] since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.[51] | |||||
|
2005-03-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| On February 11, 2000, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the decision is contrary to P.D. No. 1517.[27] They alleged that respondent did not allege in her complaint, and neither has she proven by her evidence that the lot involved is within the urban zone proclaimed as urban land reform area so that she, as an actual occupant thereof, might be the rightful beneficiary of the right of first refusal, invoking Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals[28] and Lagmay vs. Court of Appeals.[29] Petitioners subsequently filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration citing Solanda Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals[30] to bolster their position.[31] Respondent opposed petitioners' motion for reconsideration.[32] | |||||
|
2004-08-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It is easily discernible, therefore, that both "actual occupancy" and "possession at all times" -- not just one or the other -- were imposed as conditions upon respondent. The word and -- whether it is used to connect words, phrases or full sentences -- must be accepted in its common and usual meaning as "binding together and as relating to one another."[19] And implies a conjunction, joinder or union.[20] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In any event, the law is undisputably applicable only in specific areas declared to be located within the so-called urban zones.[8] The Court of Appeals found, as a matter of judicial notice, that no part of the province of Bulacan has been declared to be, or classified as, an urban land reform area.[9] | |||||