1. Viray vs IAC198 S 786 Aguaslessees went abroadPosting at the main door when nobody is there; Stipulation to repossess extrajudicially

Section 18 on execution of judgment2. City of Manila vs CA149 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 CA235 S 145 ndg Maniquisno depositJudgments in ejectment cases are immediately executory; requisites to stay (3)

4. Once vs Gonzales 76 S 258 ndg SantosNo 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 *** LuzungNo need to state good reason for execution because it is a matter of right

6. City of Manila v. CA 204 S 362*** EspinoPeriodic deposit is made in accordance with the contract; here payment is done annually; 10th day of every month applies onloy in the absence of a contract

7. Depra vs Dumlao136 S 475 DavidJudgment in ejectment cases effective in respect of possession only

8. Javier vs Veridiano237 S 565 ChanRes 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 CA244 S 101 BantingThe 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 Leabres244 S 194 TiatcoWhen execution properly stayed

11. Heirs sevilla vs CA286 S 559 Suarez

12. De Guzman vs CA195 S 715 TinioThe 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. CA149 S 183 SabadoFEUD; Section 8 of Rule 70

14. Azcuna vs CA255 S 215 ndg Lingat3k agreementDamages 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 ChanHLURB; unlawful detainer

RULE 71

1. Yasay v. Recto 313 S 739 Maniquis

2. Regalado v. Go 514 S 616 Suarez

Rule 731. Uriarte vs CFI Negros 33 S 252, L-21938-39, May 29, 1970 *** EspinoJurisdiction 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 venueAppeal 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 *** AguasException 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 *** LuzungOral 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 Torres10 S 185 BantingWhere 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 CA103 P 70 TiatcoPrescription 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 Agcaoili1 S 521 DavidPrescription 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 SantosOn the meaning of residence as distinguished