Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Unida Vs Urban

    Uploaded by

    Em Asiddao-Deona
    14 views1 page
    Heirs OF AMBROSIO URBAN filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Unida et al. The heirs claim ownership over a property that was previously infested by NPA insurgents. The Regional Trial Court reversed The MTC decision, holding the action was improper.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Unida vs Urban

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Heirs OF AMBROSIO URBAN filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Unida et al. The heirs claim ownership over a property that was previously infested by NPA insurgents. The Regional Trial Court reversed The MTC decision, holding the action was improper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views1 page

    Unida Vs Urban

    Uploaded by

    Em Asiddao-Deona
    Heirs OF AMBROSIO URBAN filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Unida et al. The heirs claim ownership over a property that was previously infested by NPA insurgents. The Regional Trial Court reversed The MTC decision, holding the action was improper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    CRISPINAUNIDAetal.v.

    HEIRSOFAMBROSIOURBAN
    460SCRA68(2005),THIRDDIVISION
    RespondentHeirsofAmbrosioUrbanfiledwiththeMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)acomplaintforunlawfuldetaineragainstCrispina
    Unida,etal.Theheirsclaimownershipovertheproperty.TheycontendthatsincethepropertywaspreviouslyinfestedbyNPA
    insurgents,theownersofthepropertydidnothingbuttotoleratethestayofUnida,etal.Unidaetal.likewiseclaimownershipover
    thesaidproperty,statingthatthetitleofthepropertywasfraudulentlyobtainedbythesaidheirs.TheMTCrenderedadecision
    againstUnidaet.al.
    TheRegionalTrialCourtreversedtheMTCdecision,holdingthatsincethecomplaintitselfassertedthatUnidaetal.sentryintothe
    propertywasunlawfulfromtheverybeginning,theallegationofheirsregardingthetolerancecannotbeconsideredastolerancein
    contemplationoflawinunlawfuldetainercase.Moreover,thereisnoforcibleentryorviolenceattendingthecase;hence,theaction
    forunlawfuldetainerwasimproper.TheRTCsuggestedthattheproperremedywastofileanaccionreivindicatoria.TheCourtof
    Appeals(CA)reversedthetrialcourtdecision.
    ISSUE:
    Whetherornotanactionforunlawfuldetainerisanimproperremedy
    HELD:
    Unidaetal.sentryintothepropertywas,bytheheirs owninformation,unlawfulfromtheverybeginning.Theheirs,nonetheless,
    claimedthatitmerelytoleratedUnidaetal.spresenceintheproperty.Clearly,anunlawfuldetaineractiondoesnotlie.
    Fortojustifyanactionforunlawfuldetainer,thepermissionortolerancemusthavebeenpresentatthebeginningofthepossession.
    Otherwise,ifthepossessionwasunlawfulfromthestart,anactionforunlawfuldetainerwouldbeanimproperremedy.
    AscorrectlyheldthenbytheRTC,thecasecannotbeconsideredasanunlawfuldetainercase,thetolerance claimedbyheirsnot
    beingthatcontemplatedbylawinunlawfuldetainercases;neithercanthecasebeconsideredasoneforforcibleentrybecausethe
    entryofUnidaetal.wasnotallegedtohavebeenbymeansofforce,intimidation,threats,stealthorstrategy.
    Sincethecomplaintdidnotsatisfythejurisdictionalrequirementofavalidcauseforunlawfuldetainerorforcibleentry,theMTC
    hadnojurisdictionoverthecase.ItisinthislightthattheCourtfindsthattheRTCcorrectlyfoundthattheMTChadnojurisdiction
    overthecomplaint.

    You might also like