No. L-57259. October 13, 1983.

Main Topic – Rule 70.

FACTS

Peran personally asked respondents, who has a house erected on the subject land, to remove the same and vacate the premises. The respondents refused so the petitioner filed a complaint for Forcible Entry and Illegal Detainer seeking the ejectment seeking the ejectment of the respondents on the grounds that (a) they are mere squatters (b) that they had prevented him from entering the property and deprived him of possession and (c) and that they were tolerating persons in getting soil and bringing about a gradual erosion of the land to his extreme prejudice.

No. 53466. November 10, 1980.

Main Topic – Rule 68.

FACTS

The failure of Serrano Spouses on paying the mortgaged debt resulted in Trial Court’s order for the sale at public auction of the mortgaged coconut land. The mortgaged lot was sold to the bank as the only bidder and there being no redemption within the one-year period (sec. 78, General Banking Law), the sheriff issued a final certificate of sale. The bank then sold the lot to Eufemia Mejos. Judge Genato issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of possession to the bank. 

No. L-56378. June 22, 1984

Main Topic – Rule 67.

FACTS

NPC instituted proceedings for eminent domain against the spouses Sadang purpose of constructing an access road to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project.

No. L-28184. September 11, 1980

Main Topic – Rule 65.

FACTS

Garcia filed with the Civil Service Commission, a protest against the appointment of the Perez on the ground that she was next in rank better qualified and entitled to preferential appointment to the position of Senior Clerk. The CSC approved the appointment of Perez.  Garcia then filed a petition for quo warranto with Court of First Instance of Manila, questioning the authority of Perez. to occupy and discharge the duties of the position of Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division. The court a quo dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner does not claim to be entitled to the position but she merely asserted a ‘preferential right’ to be appointed thereto. Under the situation, the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent.