Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANICIA U. TECSON v. DANTE GUTIERREZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180542 2010-04-12	HUBERT NUÑEZ v. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS PEREZ, J.
Petitioner is, finally, out on a limb in faulting the Court of Appeals with failure to apply the first paragraph of Article 1676 of the Civil Code of the Philippines[45] in relation to the lease he claims to have concluded with one Maria Ysabel Potenciano Padilla Sylianteng. In the absence of proof of his lessor's title or respondent's prior knowledge of said contract of lease, petitioner's harping over the same provision simply amounts to an implied admission that the premises occupied by him lie within the metes and bounds of the subject parcel. Even then, the resolution of said issue is clearly inappropriate since ejectment cases are summary actions intended to provide an expeditious manner for protecting possession or right to possession without involvement of title.[46] Moreover, if a defendant's mere assertion of ownership in an ejectment case will not oust the MeTC of its summary jurisdiction,[47] we fail to see why it should be any different in this case where petitioner merely alleged his lessor's supposed title over the subject parcel.
	GR NO. 164305 2007-11-20	JULIANA SUDARIA v. MAXIMILLIANO QUIAMBAO TINGA, J.
Petitioner's naked claim in her answer that the subject property is her homelot is not sufficient to divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment case. The court could not be deprived of jurisdiction over an ejectment case based merely on defendant's assertion of ownership over the litigated property. The underlying reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[27]
	GR No. 153791 2007-08-24	GO KE CHONG v. MARIANO M. CHAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the MTC, nonetheless, has the undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession.[29]
	GR NO. 132197 2005-08-16	ROSS RICA SALES CENTER v. SPS. GERRY ONG AND ELIZABETH ONG TINGA, J.
The Court reiterated this in the case of Tecson v. Gutierrez[26] when it ruled:We must stress, however, that before us is only the initial determination of ownership over the lot in dispute, for the purpose of settling the issue of possession, although the issue of ownership is inseparably linked thereto. As such, the lower court's adjudication of ownership in the ejectment case is merely provisional, and our affirmance of the trial courts' decisions as well, would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property, if and when such action is brought seasonably before the proper forum. The long settled rule is that the issue of ownership cannot be subject of a collateral attack.
	GR No. 115045 2000-01-31	UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. CA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
On the first issue raised, petitioner argues that Civil Case No. 52978[6] should have been dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia. Petitioner UPSI alleges that the pendency of the three cases[7] effectively bars the resolution of the case subject of the present petition (Civil Case No. 52978).