1.

Viray vs IAC
198 S 786 Aguas
lessees went abroad
Posting at the main door when nobody is there; Stipulation to repossess extrajudicially

Section 18 on execution of judgment

2. City of Manila vs CA
149 S 183 ndg market stalls Paul V.
Where plaintiff appealed the decision, there may still be execution and defendant still required to comply
with the 3 to stay
3.

San Pedro vs CA
235 S 145 ndg Maniquis
no deposit
Judgments in ejectment cases are immediately executory; requisites to stay (3)

4.

Once vs Gonzales
76 S 258 ndg Santos
No supersedeas bond is required to stay execution of a judgment pending appeal in FEUD where the
defeated party was up to date in the deposit of his monthly rentals

5.

San Manuel Wood Products, Inc. vs Tupas

249 S 466 *** Luzung
No need to state good reason for execution because it is a matter of right

6.

City of Manila v. CA 204 S 362*** Espino

Periodic deposit is made in accordance with the contract; here payment is done annually; 10 th day of every
month applies onloy in the absence of a contract

7.

Depra vs Dumlao
136 S 475 David
Judgment in ejectment cases effective in respect of possession only

8.

Javier vs Veridiano
237 S 565 Chan
Res judicata; a judgment rendered in a case for recovery of possession is conclusive only on the question of
possession and not on ownership

9.

Oblea vs CA
244 S 101 Banting
The fact that the defendants instituted a separate action for quieting of title is not a valid reason for defeating
the execution of the summary remedy of ejectment

10. Cruz vs Leabres

When execution properly stayed

244 S 194 Tiatco

11. Heirs sevilla vs CA

286 S 559 Suarez

12. De Guzman vs CA
195 S 715 Tinio
The order of dismissal cannot be pleaded as a bar to the 2nd ejectment case when the dismissal was only
due to noncompliance with demand
13. City of Manila v. CA
FEUD; Section 8 of Rule 70

149 S 183 Sabado

14. Azcuna vs CA
255 S 215 ndg Lingat
3k agreement
Damages that may be recovered in ejectment suit; Section 17
15. Progressive Development v. CA Colle
16. Francel vs CA G.R. No. 117051, January 22, 1996 252 S 127 Chan
HLURB; unlawful detainer

RULE 71
1.

Yasay v. Recto 313 S 739 Maniquis

2.

Regalado v. Go 514 S 616 Suarez

Rule 73
1. Uriarte vs CFI Negros 33 S 252, L-21938-39, May 29, 1970 *** Espino
Jurisdiction under the exclusionary rule means venue
2. Cuenco v. CA, L-24742, Oct. 26, 1973 *** Paul V.
Remedy in case of denial of dismissal based on lack of venue
Appeal not certiorari, except when lack of jurisdiction (meaning venue) appears on the record of the case
3. Bernardo vs CA G.R. No. L-18143, February 28, 1963 *** Aguas
Exception on jurisdiction of probate court to rule on the issue of ownership, they consented to the determination of
the ownership

Rule 74
1. Hernandez vs Andal 78 P 196 *** Luzung
Oral extrajudicial settlement of the estate is valid, a public instrument is required only for evidentiary purposes.
In another case: Statute of frauds is required for the transmission of rights. Hence, it does not apply in extrajudicial
settlement because the heirs are not disposing of a right but simply dividing what they have in common.
2. Torres vs Torres
10 S 185 Banting
Where the parties already entered into an extrajudicial settlement, no judicial settlement may be opened, the remedy
is that in Section 1 which states that should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.
Judicial settlement may only be opened if there is a good reason such as Section 4.
3. Sampilo vs CA
103 P 70 Tiatco
Prescription does not apply to a person who did not participate to the settlement. No constructive knowledge because
it is notice after the fact.
4. Carion vs Agcaoili
1 S 521 David
Prescription sustained; the lien over the real property had expired.
Compared to Sampilo: Agcaoili is a buyer in good faith. In Sampilo, the parties are cousins.
Requisites for 2 years to apply
5. San ruiz v. San ruiz 514 S 300 Santos
On the meaning of residence as distinguished