Array
(
    [results] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1874970
                    [Title] => Crumbling empires?
                    [Summary] => I just had to read on this one.
                    [DatePublished] => 2018-12-07 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 135937
                    [Focus] => 1
                    [AuthorID] => 1444024
                    [AuthorName] => Korina Sanchez
                    [SectionName] => Freeman Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [1] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 464310
                    [Title] => No unlawful withholding
                    [Summary] => 
Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property.
                    [DatePublished] => 2009-05-06 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [2] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 360204
                    [Title] => Fatal failure
                    [Summary] => Under existing law and jurisprudence, there are three kinds of actions to recover possession of real property: (1) accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and (3) accion reivindicatoria. Accion interdictal is summary in nature and must be brought within one year from the date the cause of action accrues. The cause of action may either be forcible entry or unlawful detainer. It is the nature of the defendant’s entry into the land which determines whether the action to be filed is for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
                    [DatePublished] => 2006-09-28 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [3] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 260109
                    [Title] => Belated but more favored
                    [Summary] => If there are two identical cases filed involving (a) the same parties or such as having the same interest in both actions, and (b) the same rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and if (c) the judgment in one would amount to a bar to the judgment in the other, either of them may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia. In such a situation, preference is generally given to the first action filed to be retained. In this case however, the second action later filed was retained.


                    [DatePublished] => 2004-08-05 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [4] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 226043
                    [Title] => Battle of possession, not ownership
                    [Summary] => Most family feuds arise because of disputes in inheritance. Much more so if the decedent’s wishes have not been expressed before he passes away. This is once more illustrated in this case of the Romero family headed by the spouses Romy and Carrie. 


Romy and Carrie owned a 228 square meter lot with a two story duplex house. They had eleven children. In 1974, when the spouses migrated to the U.S., they asked one of their sons, Romy Jr. and his children to stay in one of the units rent free. In 1985, another son, Bert occupied the other unit of the duplex house also rent free.

                    [DatePublished] => 2003-10-30 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [5] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 190751
                    [Title] => Unlawful withholding
                    [Summary] => In ejectment cases, the court is called upon to decide who has the better right of possession. Does this mean that a person must have been deprived of prior physical possession before he can file the ejectment suit? This is the question answered in this case of Melinda.


                    [DatePublished] => 2003-01-08 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

        )

)

unlawful

Array
(
    [results] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1874970
                    [Title] => Crumbling empires?
                    [Summary] => I just had to read on this one.
                    [DatePublished] => 2018-12-07 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 135937
                    [Focus] => 1
                    [AuthorID] => 1444024
                    [AuthorName] => Korina Sanchez
                    [SectionName] => Freeman Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [1] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 464310
                    [Title] => No unlawful withholding
                    [Summary] => 
Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property.
                    [DatePublished] => 2009-05-06 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [2] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 360204
                    [Title] => Fatal failure
                    [Summary] => Under existing law and jurisprudence, there are three kinds of actions to recover possession of real property: (1) accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and (3) accion reivindicatoria. Accion interdictal is summary in nature and must be brought within one year from the date the cause of action accrues. The cause of action may either be forcible entry or unlawful detainer. It is the nature of the defendant’s entry into the land which determines whether the action to be filed is for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
                    [DatePublished] => 2006-09-28 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [3] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 260109
                    [Title] => Belated but more favored
                    [Summary] => If there are two identical cases filed involving (a) the same parties or such as having the same interest in both actions, and (b) the same rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and if (c) the judgment in one would amount to a bar to the judgment in the other, either of them may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia. In such a situation, preference is generally given to the first action filed to be retained. In this case however, the second action later filed was retained.


                    [DatePublished] => 2004-08-05 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [4] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 226043
                    [Title] => Battle of possession, not ownership
                    [Summary] => Most family feuds arise because of disputes in inheritance. Much more so if the decedent’s wishes have not been expressed before he passes away. This is once more illustrated in this case of the Romero family headed by the spouses Romy and Carrie. 


Romy and Carrie owned a 228 square meter lot with a two story duplex house. They had eleven children. In 1974, when the spouses migrated to the U.S., they asked one of their sons, Romy Jr. and his children to stay in one of the units rent free. In 1985, another son, Bert occupied the other unit of the duplex house also rent free.

                    [DatePublished] => 2003-10-30 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [5] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 190751
                    [Title] => Unlawful withholding
                    [Summary] => In ejectment cases, the court is called upon to decide who has the better right of possession. Does this mean that a person must have been deprived of prior physical possession before he can file the ejectment suit? This is the question answered in this case of Melinda.


                    [DatePublished] => 2003-01-08 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133340
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804883
                    [AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

        )

)

abtest

Crumbling empires?

By Korina Sanchez | December 7, 2018 - 12:00am

I just had to read on this one.

Freeman Opinion

No unlawful withholding

By A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) | By Jose C. Sison | May 6, 2009 - 12:00am

Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property.

Opinion

Fatal failure

By A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) | By Jose C. Sison | September 28, 2006 - 12:00am

Under existing law and jurisprudence, there are three kinds of actions to recover possession of real property: (1) accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and (3) accion reivindicatoria. Accion interdictal is...

Opinion

Belated but more favored

By A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) | By Jose C. Sison | August 5, 2004 - 12:00am

If there are two identical cases filed involving (a) the same parties or such as having the same interest in both actions, and (b) the same rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same...

Opinion

Battle of possession, not ownership

By A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) | By Jose C. Sison | October 30, 2003 - 12:00am

Most family feuds arise because of disputes in inheritance. Much more so if the decedent’s wishes have not been expressed before he passes away. This is once more illustrated in this case of the Romero family...

Opinion

Unlawful withholding

By A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) | By Jose C. Sison | January 8, 2003 - 12:00am

In ejectment cases, the court is called upon to decide who has the better right of possession. Does this mean that a person must have been deprived of prior physical possession before he can file the ejectment suit?...

Opinion