Scribd
Upload
50 views1 page

Penta Pacific vs. Ley Construction

This case involves a dispute between Penta Pacific Realty Corp. and Ley Construction and Devt. Corp. Penta Pacific leased properties to Ley Construction, who then failed to pay amortizations and vacate after demands. Penta Pacific filed an ejectment action. The court ruled the ejectment suit was an "accion interdictal" or unlawful detainer suit, giving the Metropolitan Trial Court exclusive jurisdiction. Even when determining possession requires deciding ownership issues, ownership is only resolved to determine possession. The complaint alleged an accion interdictal cause of action, and Ley Construction's possession became unlawful after failing to vacate upon demand, supporting the accion interdictal ruling.

Uploaded by

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

Penta Pacific vs. Ley Construction

This case involves a dispute between Penta Pacific Realty Corp. and Ley Construction and Devt. Corp. Penta Pacific leased properties to Ley Construction, who then failed to pay amortizations and vacate after demands. Penta Pacific filed an ejectment action. The court ruled the ejectment suit was an "accion interdictal" or unlawful detainer suit, giving the Metropolitan Trial Court exclusive jurisdiction. Even when determining possession requires deciding ownership issues, ownership is only resolved to determine possession. The complaint alleged an accion interdictal cause of action, and Ley Construction's possession became unlawful after failing to vacate upon demand, supporting the accion interdictal ruling.

Uploaded by

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

Penta Pacific Realty Corp. vs. Ley Construction and Devt. Corp.

G.R. No. 161589


November 24, 2014

Facts:

Penta Pacific leased its properties to Ley Construction. Both


parties then entered into a contract to sell. Ley Construction failed to
pay its amortizations, and vacate after demands, prompting Penta
Pacific to file an action for ejectment.

The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the MeTC had no
jurisdiction over the case.

Issue:

Whether the claim of Penta Pacific renders the ejectment suit for
accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, or accion interdictal.

Ruling:

The claim of possession de Jure or the averment of ownership


of the Penta Pacific renders the ejectment suit to be an accion
interdictal, and neither accion publiciana nor accion reivindicatoria.

The suit remains an accion interdictal (referred today as unlawful


detainer), a summary proceeding that can proceed independently of
any claim of ownership. Even when the question of possession cannot
be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership is to be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter was determined from the


allegations of the complaint, which clearly set forth a cause of action
for accion interdictal. Hence, with such averment, the complaint of
Penta Pacific made out a case of accion interdictal, vesting the MeTC
with exclusive original jurisdiction over such. And, as alleged therein,
the cause of action of Penta Pacific was to recover possession of the
subject property from Ley Construction upon the failure of the latter to
comply with the demand of the former to vacate after the right of the
latter to remain was terminated.

Indeed, the possession of the Ley Construction, although lawful


at its commencement, became unlawful upon its non-compliance with
the demand of Penta Pacific to vacate.

Page 1 of 1

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy