Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF PEDRO LAURORA v. STERLING TECHNOPARK III

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 174191 2013-01-30	NENITA QUALITY FOODS CORPORATION v. CRISOSTOMO GALABO ADELAIDA GALABO BRION, J.
We agree that ownership carries the right of possession, but the possession contemplated by the concept of ownership is not exactly the same as the possession in issue in a forcible entry case. Possession in forcible entry suits refers only to possession de facto, or actual or material possession, and not possession flowing out of ownership; these are different legal concepts[36] for which the law provides different remedies for recovery of possession.[37] As we explained in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals,[38] and again in the more recent cases of Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals,[39] De Grano v. Lacaba,[40] and Lagazo v. Soriano,[41] the word "possession" in forcible entry suits refers to nothing more than prior physical possession or possession de facto, not possession de jure[42] or legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[43] Title is not the issue,[44] and the absence of it "is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case."[45]
	GR No. 178908 2010-02-04	SPS. EULOGIO N. ANTAZO AND NELIA C. ANTAZO v. LEONIDES DOBLADA NACHURA, J.
While the Letter intimates that petitioners were in possession of the property prior to respondents and that the latter were the ones who forcibly evicted them therefrom, such statement is clearly self-serving and unsupported by other evidence. Verily, this information, assuming that it is true, is not relevant to the resolution of this case. This case involves respondents' cause of action against petitioners for evicting them from the subject property which was in their possession. It is immaterial how respondents came into such possession or by what right they did so. Even usurpers of land owned by another are entitled to remain on it until they are lawfully ejected therefrom.[22]
	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. 130841 2008-02-26	SPS. VIRGINIA G. GONZAGA G.R. No. 130841 and ALFREDO GONZAGA v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The only issue in forcible entry cases is the physical or material possession of real property possession de facto, not possession de jure. Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue. If ownership is raised in the pleadings, the court may pass upon such question, but only to determine the question of possession.[17]