Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUBEN SANTOS v. SPS. TONY AYON AND MERCY AYON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 166944 2014-08-18	JUANITO MAGSINO v. ELENA DE OCAMPO BERSAMIN, J.
The first omitted document was the complaint in Civil Case No. 4141. Being the initiatory pleading, the complaint included all the material facts and dates necessary to support the petitioner's cause of action for forcible entry, specifically: (1) his prior physical possession of the property; (2) his being deprived of the physical possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and (3) his filing of the action within one year from the time he or his representative learned of the deprivation of physical possession of the land or building.[20] The direct relevance of the complaint in the appeal could neither be denied nor diminished, for only from its allegations could the true nature of the action as one for forcible entry and, consequently, whether the trial court or another court had jurisdiction over the action be fully determined. Such determination was indifferent to the defenses set up by the defendants in their answer or other responsive pleadings.[21]
	GR No. 176995 2008-07-30	PABLO D. ACAYLAR v. DANILO G. HARAYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under the above provision, there are two entirely distinct and different causes of action, to wit: (1) a case for forcible entry, which is an action to recover possession of a property from the defendant whose occupation thereof is illegal from the beginning as he acquired possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (2) a case for unlawful detainer, which is an action for recovery of possession from defendant whose possession of the property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract (express or implied) with the plaintiff, but became illegal when he continued his possession despite the termination of his right thereunder.[28]
	GR NO. 158231 2007-06-19	BABY ARLENE LARANO v. SPS. ALFREDO CALENDACION AND RAFAELA T. CALENDACION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint.[25] It cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[26] Neither can it be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties.[27] The test for determining the sufficiency of those allegations is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff.[28]
	GR NO. 139442 2006-12-06	LOURDES DELA CRUZ v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
To determine whether a complaint for recovery of possession falls under the jurisdiction of the MeTC (first level court) or the RTC (second level court), we are compelled to go over the allegations of the complaint. The general rule is that what determines the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint. These cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[8]
	GR No. 167748 2005-11-08	HEIRS OF RAFAEL MAGPILY v. HERMINIGILDO DE JESUS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The rule is that possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful when the possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by the owner. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy.[27]