Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANGELINA SORIENTE v. ESTATE OF LATE ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182716 2012-06-20	HEIRS OF JOSE MALIGASO v. SPS. SIMON D. ENCINAS AND ESPERANZA E. ENCINAS REYES, J.
In Soriente v. Estate of the Late Arsenio E. Concepcion,[18] a similar allegation possession of the property in dispute since time immemorial was met with rebuke as such possession, for whatever length of time, cannot prevail over a Torrens title, the validity of which is presumed and immune to any collateral attack.
	GR No. 151369 2011-03-23	ANITA MONASTERIO-PE AND SPS. ROMULO TAN AND EDITHA PE-TAN v. JOSE JUAN TONG PERALTA, J.
Respondent alleged in his complaint that petitioners occupied the subject property by his mere tolerance. While tolerance is lawful, such possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.[19] Respondent sent petitioners a demand letter dated December 1, 1999 to vacate the subject property, but petitioners did not comply with the demand. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[20] Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the one-year period within which a complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should be counted from the date of demand, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful.[21] Respondent filed the ejectment case against petitioners on March 29, 2000, which was less than a year from December 1, 1999, the date of formal demand. Hence, it is clear that the action was filed within the one-year period prescribed for filing an ejectment or unlawful detainer case.
	GR No. 178096 2011-03-23	ROSA DELOS REYES v. SPS. FRANCISCO ODONES NACHURA, J.
Based on the foregoing, the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint and we agree with its conclusion that petitioner is entitled to the physical possession of the lot, she having been able to prove by preponderance of evidence, through the TCT registered in her name, that she is entitled to possession of the property as owner. The countervailing evidence presented by respondents that sought to dispute the authenticity of petitioner's TCT cannot be given weight in this case. Settled is the rule that the validity of a certificate of title cannot be attacked in an action for ejectment.[32]
	GR No. 152423 2010-12-15	SPS. MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL AND VICTORIA SORDEVILLA v. MARIA COPRADA PERALTA, J.
Further, respondent's argument that petitioners are no longer the owners of a portion of the subject land because of the sale in her favor is a collateral attack on the title of the petitioners, which is not allowed. The validity of petitioners' certificate of title cannot be attacked by respondent in this case for ejectment. Under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or canceled, except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law. The issue of the validity of the title of the petitioners can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Whether or not the respondent has the right to claim ownership over the property is beyond the power of the trial court to determine in an action for unlawful detainer.[15]
	GR No. 167390 2010-07-26	SPS. ADOLFO FERNANDEZ v. SPS. MARTINES CO AND ERLINDA CO PERALTA, J.
Ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings only intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property.[43] The sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[44] The Court sustains the Decision of the Court of Appeals that respondents are entitled to the possession of the subject property as they are found to be the ones in actual possession of the property after it was sold to them by the registered owners, Emilio and Pilar Torres. The issue of the validity of the title of respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[45] Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529[46] specifically states that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack, and that it cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
	GR No. 179549 2010-06-29	LIRIO A. DEANON v. MARFELINA C. MAG-ABO PERALTA, J.
The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession.[38] Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only as it is necessary to decide the question of possession.[39] The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[40]