This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner can file the action for ejectment without impleading his co-owners. In Wee v. De Castro,[22] wherein petitioner therein argued that the respondent cannot maintain an action for ejectment against him, without joining all his co-owners, we ruled in this wise: Article 487 of the New Civil Code is explicit on this point: | |||||
|
2012-10-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bench, the complaint clearly stated that the disputed property was held in common by the petitioners; and that the action was brought to recover possession of the lots from respondents for the benefit of all the heirs of Albina. Hence, Exequiel, a co-owner, may bring the action for unlawful detainer even without the special power of attorney of his co-heirs,[26] for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all the co-owners. | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true that the first paragraph of Section 5,[10] Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, requires that the certification should be signed by the "petitioner or principal party" himself. The rationale behind this is because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies.[11] However, the rationale does not apply where, as in this case, it is the attorney-in-fact who instituted the action.[12] Such circumstance constitutes reasonable cause to allow the attorney-in-fact to personally sign the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Indeed, the settled rule is that the execution of the certification against forum shopping by the attorney-in-fact is not a violation of the requirement that the parties must personally sign the same.[13] The attorney-in-fact, who has authority to file, and who actually filed the complaint as the representative of the plaintiff, is a party to the ejectment suit.[14] In fact, Section 1,[15] Rule 70 of the Rules of Court includes the representative of the owner in an ejectment suit as one of the parties authorized to institute the proceedings. In the present case, there is no dispute that Ong is respondent's attorney-in-fact. Hence, the Court finds that there has been substantial compliance with the rules proscribing forum shopping. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Recently, in Wee v. De Castro,[11] the Court, citing Article 487 of the Civil Code, reasserted the rule that any one of the co-owners may bring any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners. The Court also stressed that Article 487 covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession, i.e., forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion), thus:In the more recent case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman,this Court declared that a co-owner is not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief can be afforded even in his absence, thus: | |||||
|
2009-02-24 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| It is well settled that where a contract of lease is verbal and on a monthly basis, the lease is one with a definite period which expires after the last day of any given thirty-day period.[7] In the recent case of Leo Wee v. De Castro where the lease contract between the parties did not stipulate a fixed period,[8] we ruled:The rentals being paid monthly, the period of such lease is deemed terminated at the end of each month. Thus, respondents have every right to demand the ejectment of petitioners at the end of each month, the contract having expired by operation of law. Without a lease contract, petitioner has no right of possession to the subject property and must vacate the same. Respondents, thus, should be allowed to resort to an action for ejectment before the MTC to recover possession of the subject property from petitioner. | |||||