This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Issues regarding the validity of title to property can be assailed only in an action expressly instituted for that specific purpose,[34] either in an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. A forcible entry action such as the present case, which by nature is an accion interdictal, is merely a quieting process and never determines actual title to an estate.[35] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The allegations in a complaint[50] and the character of the relief sought[51] determine the nature of the action and the court with jurisdiction over it. The defenses set up in an answer are not determinative.[52] | |||||
|
2008-06-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[14] A complaint for unlawful detainer is deemed sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of the possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.[15] Here, respondent alleged that he acquired possessory rights over the subject property by virtue of a government grant. He leased the property to petitioner for a monthly rental of P60.00. When petitioner failed to pay the rentals, respondent eventually sent two demand letters asking petitioner to pay and vacate the premises. Petitioner refused, thereby depriving respondent of possession of the subject property. Clearly, the complaint alleges the basic elements of an unlawful detainer case, which are sufficient for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction over it in the MTC. | |||||
|
2007-09-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, all that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.[16] But this adjudication is only provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[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] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Finally, the pending action for declaration of nullity of respondent's deed of sale and title does not abate an ejectment case.[8] | |||||