This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-09-15 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| We GRANT the petition. While we are in accord with the CA in ruling that the only issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants,[7] we disagree, however, with its conclusion that the MeTC is divested of jurisdiction in this case because the issue of ownership which is so intertwined with the issue of possession, was raised by the respondent in his Answer. | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| [37] Boy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125088, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 196, 206. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them is bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.[22] Notably, Anastacia Reyes only allowed petitioners to use and occupy certain portions of the subject property. They admitted their "use and possession" of these portions of the subject property "had been with the knowledge, consent and tolerance of all the other co-owners." Consequently, after respondent obtained title to the subject property and withdrew her tolerance later on, petitioners' refusal to vacate it rendered their possession thereof unlawful. | |||||