Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    G.R. No. 77648 August 7, 1989 CETUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ONG TENG, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    karl
    The document summarizes the key jurisdictional facts that must be established in a complaint for unlawful detainer. Specifically, it must be shown that: (1) the defendant's initial possession of the property was with the plaintiff's permission; (2) the plaintiff terminated the defendant's right to possess the property; (3) the defendant remained in possession of the property against the plaintiff's wishes; and (4) the plaintiff filed the complaint within one year of demanding the defendant vacate. The complaint must clearly demonstrate these facts without relying on outside testimony, as unlawful detainer proceedings are summary in nature. Failure to include these jurisdictional facts means the proper remedy is a different type of legal action.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 77648 August 7, 1989 CETUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ONG TENG, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    karl
    62 views2 pages
    The document summarizes the key jurisdictional facts that must be established in a complaint for unlawful detainer. Specifically, it must be shown that: (1) the defendant's initial possession of the property was with the plaintiff's permission; (2) the plaintiff terminated the defendant's right to possess the property; (3) the defendant remained in possession of the property against the plaintiff's wishes; and (4) the plaintiff filed the complaint within one year of demanding the defendant vacate. The complaint must clearly demonstrate these facts without relying on outside testimony, as unlawful detainer proceedings are summary in nature. Failure to include these jurisdictional facts means the proper remedy is a different type of legal action.

    Original Description:

    Jurisprudence for Unlawful Detainer

    Original Title

    Unlawful Detainer

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the key jurisdictional facts that must be established in a complaint for unlawful detainer. Specifically, it must be shown that: (1) the defendant's initial possession of the property was with the plaintiff's permission; (2) the plaintiff terminated the defendant's right to possess the property; (3) the defendant remained in possession of the property against the plaintiff's wishes; and (4) the plaintiff filed the complaint within one year of demanding the defendant vacate. The complaint must clearly demonstrate these facts without relying on outside testimony, as unlawful detainer proceedings are summary in nature. Failure to include these jurisdictional facts means the proper remedy is a different type of legal action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    62 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 77648 August 7, 1989 CETUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ONG TENG, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    karl
    The document summarizes the key jurisdictional facts that must be established in a complaint for unlawful detainer. Specifically, it must be shown that: (1) the defendant's initial possession of the property was with the plaintiff's permission; (2) the plaintiff terminated the defendant's right to possess the property; (3) the defendant remained in possession of the property against the plaintiff's wishes; and (4) the plaintiff filed the complaint within one year of demanding the defendant vacate. The complaint must clearly demonstrate these facts without relying on outside testimony, as unlawful detainer proceedings are summary in nature. Failure to include these jurisdictional facts means the proper remedy is a different type of legal action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    77648 August 7, 1989

    CETUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner,


    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS and ONG TENG, respondents.

    Thus, for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit, two requisites must
    concur, namely: (1) there must be failure to pay rent or comply with the
    conditions of the lease and (2) there must be demand both to pay or to
    comply and vacate within the periods specified in Section 2, Rule 70,
    namely 15 days in case of lands and 5 days in case of buildings. The first
    requisite refers to the existence of the cause of action for unlawful
    detainer while the second refers to the jurisdictional requirement of
    demand in order that said cause of action may be pursued.

    G.R. No. 187944, March 12, 2014

    CARMENCITA SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. MR. AND MRS. FELIX E. EMBOY,


    JR. AND MARILOU P. EMBOYDELANTAR, Respondents.

    In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following key jurisdictional facts


    must be alleged and sufficiently established:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with


    or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
    (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
    defendant of the termination of the latters right of possession;
    (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and
    deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
    (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
    property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.40

    Again, this Court stresses that to give the court jurisdiction to effect the
    ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the land, it is necessary that
    the complaint must sufficiently show such a statement of facts as to
    bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes
    provide a remedy, without resort to parol testimony, as these proceedings
    are summary in nature. In short, the jurisdictional facts must appear on
    the face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts
    constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not
    state how entry was effected or how and when dispossession started, the
    remedy should either be an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.44

    You might also like