Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. v. JAMES L. BOOC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194880 2012-06-20	REPUBLIC v. SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SERENO, J.
There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or of the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[50] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[51]
	AM No. MTJ-09-1743 2010-08-03	JOSEPHINE SARMIENTO v. AZNAR D. LINDAYAG CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court finds the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA well-taken. It bears stressing that ejectment cases must be resolved with great dispatch.[8] Their nature calls for it. As Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. v. Booc[9] holds: Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a "time procedure" designed to remedy the situation. Stated in another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. And since the law discourages continued wrangling over possession of property for it involves perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly and carefully be avoided.
	GR No. 177795 2009-06-19	LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Five Star Marketing, Co., Inc. v. Booc,[29] this Court distinguished the different modes of appealing RTC decisions, to wit:The Court, in Murillo v. Consul, Suarez v. Villarama, Jr. and Velayo-Fong v. Velayo, had the occasion to clarify the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, namely: a) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; b) petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and c) petition for review to this Court. The first mode of appeal is governed by Rule 41, and is taken to the CA on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode, covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode, provided for by Rule 45, is elevated to this Court only on questions of law.
	GR No. 160280 2009-03-13	SOFIA ANIOSA SALANDANAN v. SPS. MA. ISABEL AND BAYANI MENDEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Keeping these factors in mind, the courts have to give much consideration to the fact that actions for ejectment are designed to summarily restore physical possession to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession.[21] It is primarily a quieting process intended to provide an expeditious manner for protecting possession or right to possession without involvement of the title.[22] In Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. v. Booc,[23] the Court elucidated the purpose of actions for ejectment in this wise:Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a "time procedure" designed to remedy the situation. Stated in another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. And since the law discourages continued wrangling over possession of property for it involves perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly and carefully be avoided.[24] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 159589 2008-12-23	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF JUAN FABIO CARPIO, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For questions to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[24]