This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| "An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied."[16] "The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved."[17] "Thus, when the relationship of lessor and lessee is established in an unlawful detainer case, any attempt of the parties to inject the question of ownership into the case is futile, except insofar as it might throw light on the right of possession."[18] | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In the past, the Court ruled that subsequent demands that are merely in the nature of reminders of the original demand do not operate to renew the one-year period within which to commence an ejectment suit, considering that the period will still be reckoned from the date of the original demand.[71] If the subsequent demands were merely in the nature of reminders of the original demand, the one-year period to commence an ejectment suit would be counted from the first demand.[72] However, respondent failed to raise in any of the proceedings below this question of fact as to the nature of the second demand issued by the OSG. It is now too late in the proceedings for them to argue that the 2009 Notice to Vacate was a mere reiteration or reminder of the 2008 Notice to Vacate. In any event, this factual determination is beyond the scope of the present Rule 45 Petition, which is limited to resolving questions of law. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The crux of the controversy centers on the propriety of the unlawful detainer suit. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.[27] In such case, the possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess; hence, the issue of rightful possession is decisive for, in such action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.[28] | |||||
|
2007-09-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied.[12] The sole issue to be resolved is the question as to who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[13] Being a summary proceeding intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property, the question of title is not involved[14] and should be raised by the affected party in an appropriate action in the proper court.[15] | |||||