This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2007-11-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Barba v. Court of Appeals,[24] this Court categorically ruled that:Where the cause of action is unlawful detainer, prior possession is not always a condition sine qua non. A complaint for unlawful detainer should be distinguished from that of forcible entry. In forcible entry, the plaintiff has prior possession of the property and he is deprived thereof by the defendant through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In an unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession of the property after the expiration or termination of his right thereto under any contract, express or implied; hence, prior physical possession is not required. x x x. In ejectment cases, therefore, possession of land does not only mean actual or physical possession or occupation but also includes the subjection of the thing to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right, such as the execution of a deed of sale over a property. In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant's possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess. Hence the phrase unlawful withholding has been held to imply possession on the part of the defendant, which was legal from the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant.[25] The issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.[26] Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession. Nor does the law require one in possession of a house to reside in the house to maintain his possession.[27] As lessor of the subject property, respondent is legally considered as being in possession thereof. Hence, the fact of actual possession becomes a non-issue. | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.[17] However, where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine who has the right to possess the property.[18] We stress, however, that this adjudication is only an initial determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked thereto. The lower court's adjudication of ownership in the ejectment case is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[19] It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of ownership,[20] which is the subject matter of a separate case for annulment of deeds of sale filed by respondent. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| More significantly, a careful study of the merits of the case and the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, dictated the setting aside of the resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 69573 and Branch 215 in Civil Case No. Q-99-37219, as both are patently erroneous. Both dismissed petitioner's complaint for specific performance on the ground of forum-shopping. It is elementary that petitioner is not guilty of forum-shopping because there is no identity of issues and causes of action between the ejectment case which was appealed by petitioner from the MeTC to Branch 227, and the specific performance suit filed by petitioner in Branch 215. Without pre-empting the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 55949, it cannot be ignored that the primary issue before Branch 227, now pending review in CA-G.R. SP No. 55949, is not actually the validity of the MOA, as advanced by private respondents, but whether, based on private respondents' allegations in their complaint, the MeTC has jurisdiction over the case and whether private respondents have a cause of action for ejectment. It is well to state, by way of reminder, that while petitioner may have brought up the MOA in the ejectment suit, by way of defense, any ruling therein is merely provisional, only for purposes of resolving the issue of physical possession and is not res judicata or conclusive on the issue of the enforceability of the MOA, as such determination is not clothed with finality.[16] This is so because an ejectment case is simply designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties' opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.[17] The Court has long recognized that suits for specific performance with damages do not affect ejectment actions; an ejectment case for non-payment of rentals is not prejudicial to an action to enforce the right of preemption or prior purchase of the leased premises.[18] Moreover, the consistent case law is that a judgment rendered in an ejectment case shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be conclusive as to the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession.[19] | |||||
|
2005-01-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Rosanna B. Barba v. Court of Appeals,[33] we held that a simple allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is sufficient. In Barba, the complaint which petitioner filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court alleged:2. That plaintiff is the owner of a building and lot located at Lagundi, Mexico, Pampanga, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 353973-R xxx; | |||||
|
2003-11-12 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. Even if petitioners may be correct in saying that prior physical possession by the plaintiff need not be alleged in an action for unlawful detainer,[10] the absence of such possession does not ipso facto make their Complaint sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the MTC. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Rosanna B. Barba v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[9] we held 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. Moreover, an ejectment suit is summary in nature and the same cannot be circumvented by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the property. | |||||