[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
239 views1 page

G.R. No. 187944

This document summarizes a court case regarding a complaint for unlawful detainer. Felix and Marilou Emboy were occupying Lot No. 1907-A-2 and refusing to vacate, claiming inheritance from their mother. Carmencita Suarez filed a complaint for unlawful detainer to require them to vacate, but Felix and Marilou argued the complaint was inadequate. The court concluded the complaint was insufficient because it failed to clearly allege how Emboy initially entered the lot and came to possess it, which is a requisite for unlawful detainer cases. As such, the complaint should have been a different action instead and was properly dismissed.

Uploaded by

KidMonkey2299
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
239 views1 page

G.R. No. 187944

This document summarizes a court case regarding a complaint for unlawful detainer. Felix and Marilou Emboy were occupying Lot No. 1907-A-2 and refusing to vacate, claiming inheritance from their mother. Carmencita Suarez filed a complaint for unlawful detainer to require them to vacate, but Felix and Marilou argued the complaint was inadequate. The court concluded the complaint was insufficient because it failed to clearly allege how Emboy initially entered the lot and came to possess it, which is a requisite for unlawful detainer cases. As such, the complaint should have been a different action instead and was properly dismissed.

Uploaded by

KidMonkey2299
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

187944

CARMENCITA SUAREZ, petitioner,

-versus-

MR. AND MRS. FELIX E. EMBOY, JR. AND MARILOU P. EMBOY–DELANTAR,


Respondents.

Art. 428 The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations
than those established by law.
Recovery of Real Property – Unlawful Detainer - the action that must be brought when
possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee or other person of any land or building is being
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by
virtue of any contract, express or implied. In such a case, prior physical possession IS NOT
required.

March 12, 2014

FACTS OF THE CASE:


A parcel of land was partitioned into 5 among the heirs of the Carlos and Asuncion.  Lot
No. 1907-A-2 was occupied by Felix and Marilou Emboy, who were claiming that they inherited
it from their mother Claudia Emboy, who inherited it from her parents Carlos and Asuncion.
Felix and Marilou were asked by their cousins to vacate Lot No. 1907-A-2 and transfer to
Lot No. 1907-A-5.  They refused to comply and insisted that Claudia's inheritance pertained to
Lot No. 1907-A-2. In 2004, Felix and Marilou received a demand letter from Carmencita
requiring them to vacate the lot and informed them that she had already purchased the lot from
the former's relatives.  Felix and Marilou argued that the complaint for unlawful detainer was
fundamentally inadequate. There was practically no specific allegation as to when and how
possession by tolerance of them began.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the complaint for unlawful detainer was inadequate.

CONCLUSION:
In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following requisites must be alleged:
(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 latter’s 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. When the complaint fails to state the facts constituting a
forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was effected or how the
dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or accion reinvidicatoria.
In this case, the first requisite was absent.  Carmencita failed to clearly allege and prove
how Emboy entered the lot and constructed a house upon it.  Hence, the complaint should not
have been for unlawful detainer and the CA did not commit an error in dismissing Carmencita's
complaint.

You might also like