Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTORIANO M. ENCARNACION v. NIEVES AMIGO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176341 2014-07-07	PRO-GUARD SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION v. TORMIL REALTY DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In unlawful detainer cases, the defendant is necessarily in prior lawful possession of the property but his possession eventually becomes unlawful upon termination or expiration of his right to possess."[27] In other words, the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal. Additionally, the Rules of Court requires the filing of such action within a year after the withholding of possession,[28] meaning that "if the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, [then] an ejectment proceeding (in this case unlawful detainer) is proper x x x."[29]
	GR No. 178159 2011-03-02	SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO v. WILFREDO LINSANGAN ABAD, J.
Two. Wilfredo points out that the MTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case since it involved tenancy relation which comes under the jurisdiction of the DARAB.[9] But the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint.[10] Besides, the records show that Wilfredo failed to substantiate his claim that he was a tenant of the land. The MTC records show that aside from the assertion that he is a tenant, he did not present any evidence to prove the same. To consider evidence presented only during appeal is offensive to the idea of fair play.
	GR No. 165423 2011-01-19	NILO PADRE v. FRUCTOSA BAILLO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Badillo family would have been correct in seeking judicial recourse from the MTC had the case been an action for ejectment, i.e., one of forcible entry under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court wherein essential facts constituting forcible entry[29] have been averred and the suit filed within one year from the time of unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, as the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over such suit.[30] However, as the alleged dispossession occurred in 1990, the one-year period to bring a case for forcible entry had expired since the Badillos filed their suit only in December 1997. We thus construe that the remedy they availed of is the plenary action of accion publiciana, which may be instituted within 10 years.[31] "It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty."[32]
	GR No. 164402 2010-07-05	ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Also known as accion plenaria de posesion,[18] accion publiciana is anordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title.[19] It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.[20]
	GR No. 124915 2008-02-18	RIZAL SECURITY v. DIRECTOR ALEX E. MARAAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[13] Time and again, this Court has held that the allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts.[14]