Issue in Ejectment Case

The only issue in an ejectment case is the physical possession of real property ‒ possession de facto and not possession de jure.    We rule upon the issue of ownership only to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession.  As the law now stands, in an ejectment suit, the question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.  [Umpoc v. Mercado, 490 Phil. 120,136 (2005)]

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 them. [Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual, 128 Phil. 160, 163 (1967)] Whatever right of possession that the spouses Beltran may have over the subject property cannot prevail over that of Nieves for the simple reason that Nieves is the registered owner of the subject property and the alleged deed of sale, which Nieves disputes, remains unregistered.  Although it is true that the spouses Beltran, and not Nieves, were in prior physical possession of the subject property, this argument cannot hold water as prior physical possession is material only in forcible entry cases.  [Spouses Apostol v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16]

Any question regarding the validity of Nieves’ title can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.  A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. [Section 48, P.D. No. 1529] Our ruling in the present case shall not bar an action between the same parties for the determination of ownership of the subject property.

SPOUSES IDA aka “MILAGROS”  NIEVES BELTRAN and JOSE BELTRAN v. ANITA R. NIEVES, represented by NELIA G. MORAN, G.R. No. 175561, October 20, 2010

About Erineus

Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Civil Procedures, Ejectment and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Issue in Ejectment Case

  1. We have also filed and won an ejectment case in MTC & RTC. The defendant appealed the case in CA where the CA again uphold the ruling of the lower courts and viewed with disfavor the unjustified delay in the enforcement of the final orders and decision in our case. However, they have again filed a motion for reconsideration in the CA. How long are we going to wait before CA finally render it`s judgement???…In case, they lose again in the CA, can they still file an appeal in the Supreme Court???

  2. nette says:

    i am now in a process of unlawful detainer. it is between me the petitioner and my son as the defendant. judge has decissioned to immediately vacate the property and surrender the property to me the petitioner. my son the defendant filed for appeal to RTC. my lawyer has not filed motion to writ of execution. according to my atty. since this is a rare and special case because my son the defendant only did the complete appeal. he did not superseades bond and did not deposit any rental, simply because my son the defendant was not renting in my house. he was living there for free. how will my atty. present our motion to writ execution while waiting for a pending appeal. i will need all your guidance and help for this. i have come this far and the judge decission had sided on me and i dont want this to go all to waste because my atty cant file our motion. Please help, need your legal advice.
    thank you,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s