Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 154 views

    Bejar V Caluag

    Uploaded by

    jeljeljelejel arnettarnett
    1) The complaint alleges that the plaintiff originally sold half of his residential house to Fernando Mijares, who then sold it to the respondent. However, the plaintiff later became the owner of the entire land. 2) The court held that the case involves unlawful detainer, not ownership, as the complaint alleges the plaintiff demanded the respondent vacate the premises but she refused. 3) For a case to be one of unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege prior possession by the plaintiff and deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, or refusal to vacate after demand. These elements were present in the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bejar V Caluag

    Uploaded by

    jeljeljelejel arnettarnett
    154 views9 pages
    1) The complaint alleges that the plaintiff originally sold half of his residential house to Fernando Mijares, who then sold it to the respondent. However, the plaintiff later became the owner of the entire land. 2) The court held that the case involves unlawful detainer, not ownership, as the complaint alleges the plaintiff demanded the respondent vacate the premises but she refused. 3) For a case to be one of unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege prior possession by the plaintiff and deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, or refusal to vacate after demand. These elements were present in the complaint.

    Original Description:

    aaaaaa

    Original Title

    Bejar v Caluag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The complaint alleges that the plaintiff originally sold half of his residential house to Fernando Mijares, who then sold it to the respondent. However, the plaintiff later became the owner of the entire land. 2) The court held that the case involves unlawful detainer, not ownership, as the complaint alleges the plaintiff demanded the respondent vacate the premises but she refused. 3) For a case to be one of unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege prior possession by the plaintiff and deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, or refusal to vacate after demand. These elements were present in the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    154 views9 pages

    Bejar V Caluag

    Uploaded by

    jeljeljelejel arnettarnett
    1) The complaint alleges that the plaintiff originally sold half of his residential house to Fernando Mijares, who then sold it to the respondent. However, the plaintiff later became the owner of the entire land. 2) The court held that the case involves unlawful detainer, not ownership, as the complaint alleges the plaintiff demanded the respondent vacate the premises but she refused. 3) For a case to be one of unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege prior possession by the plaintiff and deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, or refusal to vacate after demand. These elements were present in the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    ALMARIO BEJAR (Deceased), as substituted by his

    heirs - CARMELITA BEJAR, ALFREDO BEJAR,


    GREGORIA B. DANCEL, BRENDA B. MIANO, LOURDES
    B. BENDIJO, and SUSANA B. CAMILO, Petitioners,
    vs.
    MARICEL CALUAG, Respondent.

    Unlawful Detainer
    Facts:

     On August 2, 2002, the late Almario Bejar, substituted by his heirs, herein
    petitioners, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 12, Manila, a
    complaint for unlawful detainer that Plaintiff is the owner of a residential house
    made of light materials consisting of wood and galvanized iron roof built on
    government-owned land located at 777 Coral Street, Tondo, Manila.
     On December 21, 1981, plaintiff sold one-half (1/2) portion of the said residential
    house with an area of twenty-two feet in length and fifteen feet in width to
    Fernando Mijares in the amount of Eleven Thousand (₱11,000.00).
     Subsequently, plaintiff became the owner in fee simple of the government land
    where his residential house was built including the one-half portion he sold to
    Fernando Mijares, located at 777 Coral Street, Tondo, Manila, evidenced by
    Transfer Certificate of Title No. 156220 registered and entered in the Register of
    Deeds of Manila on August 30, 1983.
    Facts:

     On September 2, 1991, Fernando Mijares, sold his residential house to Maricel


    Caluag with residence address at 1391 R.A. Reyes St., Tondo, Manila to be used
    as a warehouse for her business.
     Plaintiff badly needs the portion of his land occupied by the defendant to build a
    residential house for use of his family;
     On April 9, 2002, plaintiff through counsel sent a formal demand letter to
    defendant for the latter to vacate the portion of the property situated at 777
    Coral Street, Tondo, Manila within ten (10) days from receipt of the demand
    letter.
     Despite formal demand from the plaintiff on April 19, 2002, defendant failed and
    refused and still fails and refuses to vacate said portion of the property owned by
    the plaintiff located at 777 Coral Street, Tondo, Manila to the damage and
    prejudice of plaintiff.
    Facts:

     On October 15, 2002, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
    MeTC has no jurisdiction over the case as it involves the issue of ownership.
     On February 10, 2003, respondent filed a supplement to her motion to dismiss
    alleging that pursuant to the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Bahay," Almario Bejar sold
    to Fernando Mijares both his house and the entire lot on which it was
    constructed, citing paragraph 4 of the "Kasulatan" which reads:
     Na alang alang sa halagang LABING ISANG LIBO PISO (₱11,000.00) kuartang
    Filipino na kasasalukuyang gastahin na aking tinanggap ng buong kasiyahang
    loob kay FERNANDO MIJARES x x x ay aking ipinagbili, ibinigay, isinulit at inilipat ng
    buo kong pagaari na kalahating harapan ng bahay ko naipaliwanag sa itaas at
    ang pagbibili kong ito ay kasama ang lahat kong karapatan sa lupa kung may
    karapatan ako na kinatitirikan ng bahay
    Facts:

     On June 16, 2003, the MeTC issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 173262-CV
    for want of jurisdiction, holding that the actual issue between the parties is the
    enforceability of the subsequent sale by Fernando Mijares to respondent of the
    subject property; and that, therefore, jurisdiction properly lies with the Regional
    Trial Court (RTC).
     On appeal, the RTC, Branch 47, Manila, on January 5, 2004, rendered its Decision
    reversing the Order of dismissal of the MeTC. The RTC held that the issue in Civil
    Case No. 173262-CV is who has better possession of the disputed property. The
    RTC then directed the MeTC to hear the case on the merits.
    Issue:

    Whether the case involves unlawful detainer or


    forcible entry.
    Held:

    The court held that the allegations of the


    complaint do not make out a case for illegal
    detainer or forcible entry.
    Ratio Decidendi

     To make out a suit for illegal detainer or forcible entry, the complaint must
    contain two mandatory allegations:
     (1) prior physical possession of the property by the plaintiff; and
     (2) deprivation of said possession by another by means of force, intimidation, threat,
    strategy or stealth.
     This latter requirement implies that the possession of the disputed property by the intruder has
    been unlawful from the very start. Then, the action must be brought within one year from the
    date of actual entry to the property or, in cases where stealth was employed, from the date
    the plaintiff learned about it.
    Ratio Decidendi

     The complaint clearly alleges that Almario Bejar sold one-half portion of his house to Fernando
    Mijares; that the latter, in turn, sold the same portion of the house to respondent; that
    eventually, Almario Bejar became the owner in fee simple of the entire lot where his house was
    built; that he needs the portion of the lot occupied by respondent for the construction of a
    house for the use of his family; and that despite demand, respondent failed and still fails to
    vacate the premises. From the records, it appears that Almario Bejar filed his complaint within
    one year from the date of his last demand upon respondent to vacate the contested portion of
    the land.
     A suit for unlawful detainer will prosper if the complaint sufficiently alleges that there is a
    withholding of possession or refusal to vacate the property by a defendant. The cause of action
    arises from the expiration or termination of the defendant’s right to continue possession which is
    upon plaintiff’s demand to vacate the premises. The complaint for unlawful detainer must then
    be instituted within one year from the date of the last demand. All these incidents are present in
    the instant case.

    You might also like