This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-07-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Ejectment cases in general involve a perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible.[27] Thus, the Rules on Summary Procedure, which govern the proceedings in these cases and which were designed to meet that end, are intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property.[28] A mere reading of the summary rules reveals the basic objective, through the procedural requirements and prohibitions therein, to obviate dilatory practices and unnecessary delay which have long been the bane of ejectment proceedings.[29] It is within the context of this policy of the law that we rule that respondent's challenge against the identity of the subject property is barred. A contrary ruling would render useless the proceedings had at the preliminary conference and would in fact be antithetical to the very purpose of a preliminary conference which is, among others, to allow the parties to admit and stipulate on a given set of facts and to simplify the issues involved. Our pronouncement in Custodio v. Corrado[30] is instructive on this point x x x Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties. It thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. Its main objective is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial, or totally dispense with it. Prescinding therefrom, it is a basic legal precept that the parties are bound to honor the stipulations they made during the pre-trial.[31] Besides, in much the same way that a complaint in ordinary procedure which fails to state a cause of action may be cured by the evidence presented at the trial, a defective complaint in an ejectment case may likewise be cured by the allegations in the position paper.[32] | |||||