Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO PAZ v. ROSARIO G. REYES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 165831 2007-02-23	SPS. COL. PEDRO L. LUMBRES AND REBECCA ROARING v. SPS. PEDRO B. TABLADA GARCIA, J.
When acting as an ejectment court, the Metropolitan, Municipal and Circuit Trial Courts' jurisdiction is limited to the determination of the issue on possession de facto and not possession de jure.[11] By way of exception, however, if the issue of possession depends on the resolution of the issue of ownership, which is sufficiently alleged in the complaint, as here, the MTCC may resolve the issue of ownership although the resulting judgment would be conclusive only with respect to possession but not to the ownership of the property.[12]
	GR No. 144560 2004-05-13	FLORENTINO ZARAGOZA v. PEDRO NOBLEZA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner thereupon filed on June 20, 2000, a Motion for Reconsideration of the above-said CA Resolution of May 31, 2000, manifesting that per June 14, 2000 certification[17] issued by Registry Clerk E. P. Villaruel of the Pasig Capitol Post Office, Registry No. 7439, allegedly covering the petition for review addressed to the CA, was mailed on March 30, 2000. In the same breath, petitioner pleaded for a liberal application of the rules of procedure given the "overriding importance of the factual and legal issues" raised in his petition.
	GR No. 142843 2003-08-06	OCTAVIO ALVAREZ v. CA AND SPS. DOMINGO AND CELIA GARCIA QUISUMBING, J.
After a thorough consideration of the submission of the parties and the records of the case, we find that the petition is bereft of merit. Petitioners' insistence that the inferior and appellate courts erred in resolving the issue of ownership in this case in order to resolve the question of who has a better right to possess the subject property finds no support in law nor in jurisprudence. It is settled that in ejectment cases, the lower court (whether Metropolitan, Municipal, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court) may decide the issue of ownership if it is intertwined with the question of possession.[31] As held in Paz v. Reyes:[32]
	GR No. 146815 2003-04-09	HEIRS OF PEDRO LAURORA v. STERLING TECHNOPARK III PANGANIBAN, J.
We stress that the issue of ownership in ejectment cases is to be resolved only when it is intimately intertwined with the issue of possession,[15] to such an extent that the question of who had prior possession cannot be determined without ruling on the question of who the owner of the land is.[16] No such intertwinement has been shown in the case before us. Since respondents' claim of ownership is not being made in order to prove prior possession, the ejectment court cannot intrude or dwell upon the issue of ownership.[17]