Lawyerly

GR No. 197058

2015-10-14

GREGORY BALUYO Y GAMORA v. SPS. JOAQUIN AND REBECCA DE LA CRUZ

BRION, J.

Proof of prior physical possession is an indispensable element in a forcible entry case.[24] Section 1, Rule 70[25] of the Revised Rules of Court requires that, in actions for forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege that he has been deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. This requirement implies that the defendant's possession of the property is unlawful from the beginning, as he acquires possession by unlawful means. The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant.[26]

GR No. 204926

2014-12-03

ANACLETO C. MANGASER v. DIONISIO UGAY

MENDOZA, J.

There is only one issue in ejectment proceedings: who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de facto, not possession de jure? Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[29]

AC. No. 7649

2011-12-14

SIAO ABA v. ATTYS. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN

CARPIO, J.

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.[75] It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[76] Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.

GR No. 180542

2010-04-12

HUBERT NUÑEZ v. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS

PEREZ, J.

Then as now, petitioner argues that, aside from the admission in the complaint that the subject parcel was left idle and unguarded, respondent's claim of prior possession is clearly negated by the fact that he had been in occupancy thereof since 1999. While prior physical possession is, admittedly, an indispensable requirement in forcible entry cases, the dearth of merit in petitioner's position is, however, evident from the principle that possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.[34] Because possession can also be acquired by juridical acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession, e.g., donations, succession, execution and registration of public instruments, inscription of possessory information titles and the like, it has been held that one need not have actual or physical occupation of every square inch of the property at all times to be considered in possession.[35]

GR No. 178527

2009-11-27

JOVEN YUKI v. WELLINGTON CO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The argument is bereft of merit. The allegation of existence of implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment case. It is an elementary rule that the jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint[26] and cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[27] This principle holds even if the facts proved during trial do not support the cause of action alleged in the complaint.[28] In connection with this, it is well to note that in unlawful detainer cases the elements to be proved and resolved are the facts of lease and expiration or violation of its terms.[29]

GR No. 183606

2009-10-27

CHARLIE T. LEE v. ROSITA DELA PAZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Primarily, this case stemmed from a forcible entry case filed by respondent against petitioner. A forcible entry case is an ejectment suit. In ejectment suits or ejectment proceedings, the only issue involved is: who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de facto, not possession de jure? Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[22] The main thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior possession and that the same was lost through force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth, so that it behooves the court to restore possession regardless of title or ownership.[23]

GR No. 184285

2009-09-25

RODOLFO 'RUDY' CANLAS v. ILUMINADA TUBIL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is settled that as long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter. This principle holds, even if the facts proved during the trial do not support the cause of action thus alleged, in which instance the court - after acquiring jurisdiction - may resolve to dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence.[20]

GR No. 172547

2009-06-30

PRECY BUNYI v. FE S. FACTOR

QUISUMBING, J.

For one to be considered in possession, one need not have actual or physical occupation of every square inch of the property at all times.[18] Possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.[19] Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. These are acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession. Examples of these are donations, succession, execution and registration of public instruments, and the inscription of possessory information titles.[20]

GR No. 158877

2009-06-16

JOVEN DE GRANO v. GREGORIO LACABA

NACHURA, J.

Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proof of possession.[33] They are merely good indicia of possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[34] It bears emphasizing that the word "possession," as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[35] When the law speaks of possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession de jure.[36] Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue.[37] Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[38]

GR No. 176995

2008-07-30

PABLO D. ACAYLAR v. DANILO G. HARAYO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In a long line of cases,[31] this Court reiterated that the fact of prior physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases. The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the premises long before he was deprived thereof by the defendant.[32] It must be stressed that plaintiff cannot succeed where it appears that, as between himself and the defendant, the latter had possession antedating his own. To ascertain this, it is proper to look at the situation as it existed long before the first act of spoliation occurred in order to intelligibly determine whose position is more in accord with the surrounding circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles. Such determination in this case requires a review of factual evidence, generally proscribed in a petition like this. However, where the factual findings of the courts a quo are contrary to each other, this Court may intervene to resolve the conflict and settle the factual issues raised by the parties.[33]

GR No. 171442

2008-06-17

ADING QUIZON v. LANIZA D. JUAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In a long line of cases,[16] this Court reiterated that the fact of prior physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases. The plaintiff must prove that they were in prior physical possession of the premises long before they were deprived thereof by the defendant.[17]

AC. NO. 7136

2007-08-01

JOSELANO GUEVARRA v. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA

PER CURIAM

Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence - that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other[32] - which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.

GR NO. 165962

2007-07-06

VIRGINIA PEREZ CLAUDIO v. FRANCISCA QUEBRAL

TINGA, J.

It is hornbook doctrine that in an ejectment case, it is not the prime function of the courts to resolve questions relating to title to or ownership of the property in litigation. What is involved in ejectment cases is merely the issue of material or physical possession (possession de facto) independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants,[39] such that any one of them who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself regardless of the character of such possession provided that he has in his favor priority in time.[40]

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. 163118

2007-04-27

DORIS CHIONGBIAN-OLIVA v. REPUBLIC

QUISUMBING, J.

In this case, the trial court properly took judicial notice that Talamban, Cebu City is an urban area. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.[20] A municipal jurisdiction, whether designated as chartered city or provincial capital, is considered as urban in its entirety if it has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square kilometer.[21] The City of Cebu was created on October 20, 1934 under Commonwealth Act No. 58.[22] It is a highly urbanized city classified as entirely urban.[23] Thus, all its barangays, including Talamban, are considered urban.

GR NO. 140798

2006-09-19

MARCELITO D. QUEVADA v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. - Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. [Underscoring supplied.] The necessary allegations in private respondent's complaint clearly meet the requirements of the above-cited provision in filing an action for unlawful detainer.[8] Moreover, in accordance with the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, such action is within the jurisdiction of the MeTC[9] and must be filed within one year.[10]

	GR No. 197058 2015-10-14	GREGORY BALUYO Y GAMORA v. SPS. JOAQUIN AND REBECCA DE LA CRUZ BRION, J.
Proof of prior physical possession is an indispensable element in a forcible entry case.[24] Section 1, Rule 70[25] of the Revised Rules of Court requires that, in actions for forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege that he has been deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. This requirement implies that the defendant's possession of the property is unlawful from the beginning, as he acquires possession by unlawful means. The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant.[26]
	GR No. 204926 2014-12-03	ANACLETO C. MANGASER v. DIONISIO UGAY MENDOZA, J.
There is only one issue in ejectment proceedings: who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de facto, not possession de jure? Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[29]
	AC. No. 7649 2011-12-14	SIAO ABA v. ATTYS. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN CARPIO, J.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.[75] It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[76] Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
	GR No. 180542 2010-04-12	HUBERT NUÑEZ v. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS PEREZ, J.
Then as now, petitioner argues that, aside from the admission in the complaint that the subject parcel was left idle and unguarded, respondent's claim of prior possession is clearly negated by the fact that he had been in occupancy thereof since 1999. While prior physical possession is, admittedly, an indispensable requirement in forcible entry cases, the dearth of merit in petitioner's position is, however, evident from the principle that possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.[34] Because possession can also be acquired by juridical acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession, e.g., donations, succession, execution and registration of public instruments, inscription of possessory information titles and the like, it has been held that one need not have actual or physical occupation of every square inch of the property at all times to be considered in possession.[35]
	GR No. 178527 2009-11-27	JOVEN YUKI v. WELLINGTON CO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The argument is bereft of merit. The allegation of existence of implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment case. It is an elementary rule that the jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint[26] and cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[27] This principle holds even if the facts proved during trial do not support the cause of action alleged in the complaint.[28] In connection with this, it is well to note that in unlawful detainer cases the elements to be proved and resolved are the facts of lease and expiration or violation of its terms.[29]
	GR No. 183606 2009-10-27	CHARLIE T. LEE v. ROSITA DELA PAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Primarily, this case stemmed from a forcible entry case filed by respondent against petitioner. A forcible entry case is an ejectment suit. In ejectment suits or ejectment proceedings, the only issue involved is: who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de facto, not possession de jure? Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[22] The main thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior possession and that the same was lost through force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth, so that it behooves the court to restore possession regardless of title or ownership.[23]
	GR No. 184285 2009-09-25	RODOLFO 'RUDY' CANLAS v. ILUMINADA TUBIL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is settled that as long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter. This principle holds, even if the facts proved during the trial do not support the cause of action thus alleged, in which instance the court - after acquiring jurisdiction - may resolve to dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence.[20]
	GR No. 172547 2009-06-30	PRECY BUNYI v. FE S. FACTOR QUISUMBING, J.
For one to be considered in possession, one need not have actual or physical occupation of every square inch of the property at all times.[18] Possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.[19] Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. These are acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession. Examples of these are donations, succession, execution and registration of public instruments, and the inscription of possessory information titles.[20]
	GR No. 158877 2009-06-16	JOVEN DE GRANO v. GREGORIO LACABA NACHURA, J.
Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proof of possession.[33] They are merely good indicia of possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[34] It bears emphasizing that the word "possession," as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[35] When the law speaks of possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession de jure.[36] Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue.[37] Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[38]
	GR No. 176995 2008-07-30	PABLO D. ACAYLAR v. DANILO G. HARAYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a long line of cases,[31] this Court reiterated that the fact of prior physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases. The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the premises long before he was deprived thereof by the defendant.[32] It must be stressed that plaintiff cannot succeed where it appears that, as between himself and the defendant, the latter had possession antedating his own. To ascertain this, it is proper to look at the situation as it existed long before the first act of spoliation occurred in order to intelligibly determine whose position is more in accord with the surrounding circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles. Such determination in this case requires a review of factual evidence, generally proscribed in a petition like this. However, where the factual findings of the courts a quo are contrary to each other, this Court may intervene to resolve the conflict and settle the factual issues raised by the parties.[33]
	GR No. 171442 2008-06-17	ADING QUIZON v. LANIZA D. JUAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a long line of cases,[16] this Court reiterated that the fact of prior physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases. The plaintiff must prove that they were in prior physical possession of the premises long before they were deprived thereof by the defendant.[17]
	AC. NO. 7136 2007-08-01	JOSELANO GUEVARRA v. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA PER CURIAM
Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence - that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other[32] - which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
	GR NO. 165962 2007-07-06	VIRGINIA PEREZ CLAUDIO v. FRANCISCA QUEBRAL TINGA, J.
It is hornbook doctrine that in an ejectment case, it is not the prime function of the courts to resolve questions relating to title to or ownership of the property in litigation. What is involved in ejectment cases is merely the issue of material or physical possession (possession de facto) independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants,[39] such that any one of them who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself regardless of the character of such possession provided that he has in his favor priority in time.[40]
	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. 163118 2007-04-27	DORIS CHIONGBIAN-OLIVA v. REPUBLIC QUISUMBING, J.
In this case, the trial court properly took judicial notice that Talamban, Cebu City is an urban area. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.[20] A municipal jurisdiction, whether designated as chartered city or provincial capital, is considered as urban in its entirety if it has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square kilometer.[21] The City of Cebu was created on October 20, 1934 under Commonwealth Act No. 58.[22] It is a highly urbanized city classified as entirely urban.[23] Thus, all its barangays, including Talamban, are considered urban.
	GR NO. 140798 2006-09-19	MARCELITO D. QUEVADA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. - Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. [Underscoring supplied.] The necessary allegations in private respondent's complaint clearly meet the requirements of the above-cited provision in filing an action for unlawful detainer.[8] Moreover, in accordance with the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, such action is within the jurisdiction of the MeTC[9] and must be filed within one year.[10]

HABAGAT GRILL THROUGH LOUIE BIRAOGO v. DMC-URBAN PROPERTY DEVELOPER