ejectment jurisprudence

7/23/2019 Ejectment Jurisprudence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejectment-jurisprudence 1/20

SECOND DIVISION

HUBERT NUEZ,

Petitioner,

- versus -

SLTEAS PHOENIX

SOLUTIONS, INC., through its

represet!ti"e,

CESAR S#LIANTEN$

Respondent,

$.R. No. %&'()*

Present:

CARPIO, J .,

Chairperson,

BRION,

DEL CASTILLO,

PERE, and

!ENDOA," JJ .

Pro#u$%ated:

Apri$ &', '(&(

) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -)

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

The deter#ination o* the +urisdition o* *irst $eve$ ourts over e+et#ent ases is at theheart o* this Petition *or Revie on Certiorari *i$ed pursuant to Ru$e / o* the &001

Ru$es o* Civi$ Proedure, hih see2s the nu$$i*iation and settin% aside o* the 3& 4u$5

'((1 Deision rendered 65 the Speia$ Te$*th Division o* the Court o* Appea$s in CA-

7.R. SP No. 0&11&.8&9

The Facts

The su6+et #atter o* the instant suit is a 3/./( s;uare #eter pare$ o* $and situated

at Calle So$ana, Intra#uros, !ani$a and re%istered in the na#e o* respondent SLTEAS

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/180542.htm#_ftn1




Phoeni) So$utions, In. under Trans*er Certi*iate o* Tit$e <TCT= No. >1// o* the

!ani$a Cit5 Re%istr5 o* Deeds. Despite havin% a;uired the sa#e thru the 4une &000

Deed o* Assi%n#ent e)euted in its *avor 65 the Spouses On% Ti2o and E#ereniana

S5$ianten%,8'9 it appears that respondent as onstrained to $eave the su6+et pare$ id$e

and un%uarded *or so#e ti#e due to i#portant 6usiness onerns. In Oto6er '((3, an

ou$ar inspetion onduted 65 respondents representatives revea$ed that the propert5

as a$read5 oupied 65 petitioner ?u6ert Nue@ and '& other individua$s. 839 Initia$$5

*au$tin% one ivenia ide$ ith un+usti*ied re*usa$ to heed its ver6a$ de#ands to vaate

the su6+et pare$, respondent *i$ed its / Dee#6er '((3o#p$aint *or *ori6$e entr5

hih as do2eted as Civi$ Case No. &11(( 6e*ore Branh o* the !etropo$itan Tria$

Court <!eTC= o* !ani$a.89

Additiona$$5 i#p$eadin% petitioner and the rest o* the oupants o* the propert5,

respondent *i$ed its 0 4anuar5 '(( a#ended o#p$aint, a$$e%in%, a#on% other #atters,

that thru its representatives and predeessors-in-interest, it had ontinuous$5 possessed

the su6+et rea$t5, over hih it e)erised a$$ attri6utes o* onership, in$udin% pa5#ent

o* rea$ propert5 ta)es and other sundr5 e)penses that ithout the 6ene*it o* an5 $ease

a%ree#ent or possessor5 ri%ht, hoever, petitioners and his o-de*endants have

sueeded in oup5in% the propert5 65 #eans o* strate%5 and stea$th and, that

aordin% to re$ia6$e soures, the $atter had 6een in oupan5 o* the sa#e pare$ sine

&000. To%ether ith the e+et#ent o* the oupants o* the su6+et pre#ises, respondent pra5ed *or the %rant o* its $ai#s *or reasona6$e renta$s, attorne5s *ees, $iti%ation

e)penses and the osts.8/9

Spei*ia$$5 den5in% the #ateria$ a$$e%ations o* the *ore%oin% a#ended o#p$aint

in his & e6ruar5 '(( Anser, petitioner averred that the propert5 oupied 65 hi# is

oned 65 one !aria sa6e$ Poteniano Padi$$a S5$ianten%, ith ho# he had

on$uded a su6sistin% $ease a%ree#ent over the sa#e, and that, in addition torespondents $a2 o* ause o* ation a%ainst hi#, the !eTC had no +urisdition over the

ase *or $a2 o* prior de#and to vaate and re*erra$ o* the ontrovers5 to

the barangay authorities *or a possi6$e a#ia6$e sett$e#ent.89Li2eise ;uestionin% the

!eTCs +urisdition over the ase, the rest o* the de*endants *i$ed a !otion to

Dis#iss819 hih the5 adopted as their anser su6se;uent to its '1 e6ruar5 '((denia$

upon the *indin% that a su**iient ause o* ation an 6e %$eaned *ro# the a$$e%ations o*

the o#p$aint.8>9

A*ter an ou$ar inspetion onduted on 0 4une '((, it appears that the !eTC

on$uded that the rodin% o* the residentia$ units on the su6+et pare$ rendered the

deter#ination o* its e)at #etes and 6ounds i#possi6$e.809 na6$e to present his $essors

tit$e, petitioner a$so appears to have a%reed to the use o* TCT No. >1// as 6asis *or



















deter#inin% the e)at #easure#ent o* respondents propert5.8&(9 Fith the parties *urther

*ai$ure to a6ide 65 their a%ree#ent to ause a surve5 o* the propert5 thru an i#partia$

surve5or *ro# the O**ie o* the Cit5 Assessor or Cit5 En%ineer, the reord shos that

respondent su6#itted a surve5 p$an prepared 65 7eodeti En%ineer 4oseph Padi$$a ho

deter#ined that petitioner as, indeed, oup5in% a portion o* the su6+et pare$.8&&9 Re$5in% on said report, the !eTC ent on to render a Deision dated '3 Nove#6er

'((,8&'9 reso$vin% the o#p$aint in the *o$$oin% ise:

Fhere*ore, pre#ises onsidered, +ud%#ent is here65 rendered in *avor o* the p$ainti** anda%ainst a$$ the de*endants and orderin% the $atter to:

&. vaate the su6+et pre#ises $oated at Lot &&, B$o2 /, So$ana St.,

Intra#uros, !ani$a

'. *or eah 8de*endant9, to pa5 Php/,(((.(( a #onth ounted *ro# Oto6er '((3 unti$

de*endants vaate the su6+et propert5 3. to pa5 Php&/,(((.(( as and *or attorne5s *ees and

. to pa5 the osts o* suit.8&39

On appea$, the *ore%oin% deision as a**ir#ed in toto in the & 4u$5 '((/ Order issued

65 the Re%iona$ Tria$ Court <RTC= o* !ani$a in Civi$ Case No. (/-&&'0(.8&9 Dissatis*ied ith said Order, petitioner e$evated the ase to the Court o* Appea$s 65

a5 o* a petition *or revie *i$ed pursuant to Setion &, Ru$e ' o* the &001 Ru$es o*

Civi$ Proedure.8&/9 indin% that the a$$e%ations in respondents a#ended o#p$aint

su**iient$5 #ade out a ause o* ation *or *ori6$e entr5 a%ainst petitioner, the Court o*

Appea$s rendered the herein assai$ed deision, dis#issin% said petition *or revie upon

the *o$$oin% *indin%s and on$usions:

Parenthetia$$5, a$thou%h the dispossession too2 p$ae #ore than one 5ear *ro# the i$$e%a$ entr5 o*

petitioner and his o-de*endants, 2no$ed%e o* the sa#e as on$5 a;uired 65 petitioner in '((3 henthe ou$ar inspetion as #ade. Fhi$e ordinari$5, the one-5ear presriptive period shou$d 6e re2oned

*ro# the date o* the atua$ entr5 on the $and, the sa#e hoever, does not ho$d true hen entr5 as #ade

throu%h stea$th, in hih ase, the one 5ear period is ounted *ro# the ti#e the p$ainti** $earned thereo*.

Neither #a5 petitioner see2 re*u%e in the a$$e%ed de#and $etter dated 3& 4u$5 &00 sent 65 respondents

ounse$ hih sou%ht his ouster *ro# the su6+et pre#ises. Not on$5 as the e)istene o* this $etter

i##ateria$ to the issue o* i$$e%a$ entr5 into the su6+et pre#ises 6ut the sa#e annot 6ind respondent hohas no partiipation therein. !oreover, it a$so 6ears stressin% that not one did petitioner re*ute the $a2 o*

2no$ed%e on the part o* respondent o* the a$$e%ed $ease ontrat and their usurpation o* the disputed

propert5. eri$5, %rantin% that a $ease ontrat tru$5 e)isted, respondents $a2 o* 2no$ed%e o* the $ease

ontrat and the *ai$ure to re%ister the sa#e in the Re%ister o* Deeds annot 6ind third parties $i2erespondent and there*ore, ithho$d respondents ri%ht to institute the ation *or e+et#ent.

As to the identit5 o* the pre#ises oupied 65 petitioner Nue@, Fe *ind that the RTC o##itted noreversi6$e error in ad#ittin% the evidene o* respondent hih onsists o* the p$an prepared 65 7eodetiEn%ineer Padi$$a. Su**ie it to state that petitioner, durin% the proeedin%s 6e$o, a%reed to seure an

i#partia$ surve5 *ro# the Assessors O**ie or the O**ie o* the Cit5 En%ineer. ?oever, hen he too2 no

ation a*ter *ai$in% to o6tain the surve5 *ro# said o**ies, his onse;uent *ai$ure to seure, on his on, the

servies o* an i#partia$ surve5or to deter#ine and re6ut respondents a$$e%ation, he did so on his onaord and had no other person 6ut hi#se$* to 6$a#e.8&9


















The Issues

pon reeipt o* the Court o* Appea$s Nove#6er '((1 Reso$ution den5in% his

#otion *or reonsideration o* the a*ore;uoted deision,

8&19

petitioner *i$ed the petition at 6enh on the *o$$oin% %rounds:

I

T?E CORTS ?AE NO 4RISDICTION TO TR T?E INSTANT CASE CONSIDERIN7 T?AT

T?E ELE!ENTS O ORCIBLE ENTR ARE NOT PRESENT AND ADDITIONALL T?ERE IS AGESTION O OFNERS?IP.

II

T?E PETITIONER S?OLD NOT ACATE T?E LEASED PRE!ISES CONSIDERIN7 T?ATT?ERE IS AN EHISTIN7 LEASE CONTRACT FIT? T?E OFNER F?IC? IS IN IOLATION O

T?E PROISION O ARTICLE &1& O T?E NEF CIIL CODE.8&>9

The Courts Ruling

Fe *ind the petition 6ere*t o* #erit.

Desi%ned to provide an e)peditious #eans o* protetin% atua$ possession or the

ri%ht to possession o* the propert5 invo$ved, 8&09 there an 6e no %ainsa5in% the *at that

e+et#ent ases *a$$ ithin the ori%ina$ and e)$usive +urisdition o* *irst $eve$

ourts8'(9 65 e)press provision o* Setion 33 o* Batas Pambansa Blg. %*+, in re$ation to

Se. &, Ru$e 1( o* the &001 Ru$es o* Civi$ Proedure.8'&9 In addition to 6ein% on*erred

65 $a,8''9 hoever, a ourts +urisdition over the su6+et #atter is deter#ined 65 the

a$$e%ations o* the o#p$aint8'39 and the harater o* the re$ie* sou%ht,8'9 irrespetive o*

hether or not the p$ainti** is entit$ed to reover a$$ or so#e o* the $ai#s asserted

therein.8'/9 In #uh the sa#e a5 that it annot 6e #ade to depend on the e)$usive

harateri@ation o* the ase 65 one o* the parties,8'9 +urisdition annot 6e #ade to

depend upon the de*enses set up in the anser, in a #otion to dis#iss or in a #otion *or

reonsideration.8'19

The ru$e is no di**erent in ations *or *ori6$e entr5 here the *o$$oin% re;uisites

are essentia$ *or the !eTCs a;uisition o* +urisdition over the ase, viz .: <a= the

p$ainti**s #ust a$$e%e their prior ph5sia$ possession o* the propert5 <6= the5 #ust assert

that the5 ere deprived o* possession either 65 *ore, inti#idation, threat, strate%5 or

stea$th and, <= the ation #ust 6e *i$ed ithin one <&= 5ear *ro# the ti#e the oners or

$e%a$ possessors $earned o* their deprivation o* the ph5sia$ possession o* the propert5.8'>9 As it is not essentia$ that the o#p$aint shou$d e)press$5 e#p$o5 the $an%ua%e o* the




























$a, it is onsidered a su**iient o#p$iane o* the re;uire#ent here the *ats are set

up shoin% that dispossession too2 p$ae under said onditions.8'09 The one-5ear period

ithin hih to 6rin% an ation *or *ori6$e entr5 is %enera$$5 ounted *ro# the date o*

atua$ entr5 on the $and, e)ept that hen the entr5 is throu%h stea$th, the one-5ear

period is ounted *ro# the ti#e the p$ainti** $earned thereo*.83(9

Even presindin% *ro# the *at that the parties had ad#itted the !eTCs

+urisdition,83&9 our perusa$ o* the reord shos that respondents 0 4anuar5

'(( a#ended o#p$aint as a6$e to #a2e out a ause o* ation *or *ori6$e entr5

a%ainst petitioner. As the re%istered oner o* the su6+et pare$, respondent distint$5

a$$e%ed that, 65 its representatives and thru its predeessors-in-interest, it had 6een in

possession o* the su6+et pare$ and had e)erised over the sa#e a$$ attri6utes o*

onership, in$udin% the pa5#ent o* rea$t5 ta)es and other e)penses that an ou$ar

inspetion onduted in Oto6er '((3 revea$ed that petitioner and his o-de*endants

have sueeded in oup5in% the propert5 65 #eans o* stea$th and strate%5 and, that its

su6se;uent de#ands to vaate had 6een unheeded 65 said inter$opers. 83'9 Considerin%

that the test *or deter#inin% the su**iien5 o* the a$$e%ations in the o#p$aint is

hether, ad#ittin% the *ats a$$e%ed, the ourt an render a va$id +ud%#ent in aordane

ith the pra5er o* the p$ainti**,8339 e *ind that the Court o* Appea$s orret$5 ru$ed that

the !eTC had +urisdition over the ase.

Then as no, petitioner ar%ues that, aside *ro# the ad#ission in the o#p$aint

that the su6+et pare$ as $e*t id$e and un%uarded, respondents $ai# o* prior

possession is $ear$5 ne%ated 65 the *at that he had 6een in oupan5 thereo* sine

&000. Fhi$e prior ph5sia$ possession is, ad#itted$5, an indispensa6$e re;uire#ent in

*ori6$e entr5 ases, the dearth o* #erit in petitioners position is, hoever, evident *ro#

the prinip$e that possession an 6e a;uired not on$5 65 #ateria$ oupation, 6ut a$so

65 the *at that a thin% is su6+et to the ation o* ones i$$ or 65 the proper ats and

$e%a$ *or#a$ities esta6$ished *or a;uirin% suh ri%ht. 839 Beause possession an a$so 6e

a;uired 65 +uridia$ ats to hih the $a %ives the *ore o* ats o* possession, e.g .,

donations, suession, e)eution and re%istration o* pu6$i instru#ents, insription o*

possessor5 in*or#ation tit$es and the $i2e, it has 6een he$d that one need not have atua$

or ph5sia$ oupation o* ever5 s;uare inh o* the propert5 at a$$ ti#es to 6e onsidered

in possession.83/9

In this ase, the su6+et pare$ as a;uired 65 respondent 65 virtue o* the 4une

&000 Deed o* Assi%n#ent e)euted in its *avor 65 the Spouses On% Ti2o and

E#ereniana S5$ianten%. A$thou%h it did not i##ediate$5 put the sa#e to ative use,respondent appears to have additiona$$5 aused the propert5 to 6e re%istered in its na#e

as o* '1 e6ruar5 '(('839and to have paid the rea$ propert5 ta)es due

thereon8319 a$on%side the sundr5 e)penses inidenta$ thereto. ieed in the $i%ht o* the

*ore%oin% +uridia$ ats, it onse;uent$5 did not #atter that, 65 the ti#e respondent

onduted its ou$ar inspetion in Oto6er '((3, petitioner had a$read5 6een oup5in%

the $and sine &000. Ordinari$5 re2oned *ro# the date o* atua$ entr5 on the $and, the





















one 5ear period is ounted *ro# the ti#e the p$ainti** a;uired 2no$ed%e o* the

dispossession hen, as here, the sa#e had 6een e**eted 65 #eans o* stea$th.83>9

Petitioner had, o* ourse, endeavored to esta6$ish that respondents predeessors-

in-interest had served hi# a de#and to vaate the su6+et pare$ as ear$5 as 3& 4u$5

&00.8309Corret$5 6rushed aside 65 the Court o* Appea$s on the %round, a#on% others,

that respondent had no partiipation in its preparation, e *ind said de#and $etter o*

$itt$e or no use to petitioners ause in vie o* its non-presentation 6e*ore the

!eTC. ?oever, #uh as it #a5 no 6e e)pedient *or petitioner to anhor his ause

thereon, said de#and $etter as *irst introdued in the reord on$5 as an attah#ent to

his rep$5 to respondents o##ent to the #otion *or reonsideration o* the & 4u$5

'((/ order issued 65 the RTC.8(9 The ru$e is sett$ed, hoever, that points o* $a,

theories, issues and ar%u#ents not 6rou%ht to the attention o* the tria$ ourt i$$ not 6e

and ou%ht not to 6e onsidered 65 a reviein% ourt, as these annot 6e raised *or the*irst ti#e on appea$.8&9 Basi onsideration o* due proess i#pe$s this ru$e.8'9

A si#i$ar dearth o* #erit #a5 6e said o* the e)eptions petitioner ontinues to

ta2e a%ainst the !eTCs re$iane on the surve5 p$an prepared 65 7eodeti En%ineer

4oseph Padi$$a to the e**et that that the pre#ises oupied 65 petitioner $ies ithin the

#etes and 6ounds o* respondents propert5. As #ere a$$e%ation is not evidene,839 the

ru$e is sett$ed that p$ainti** has the 6urden o* provin% the #ateria$ a$$e%ations o* the

o#p$aint hih are denied 65 the de*endant, and the de*endant has the 6urden o*

provin% the #ateria$ a$$e%ations in his ase here he sets up a ne #atter.89 7iven the

parties *ai$ure to #a2e %ood on their a%ree#ent to ause a surve5 o* the propert5 thru an

i#partia$ surve5or *ro# the O**ie o* the Cit5 Assessor or Cit5 En%ineer, respondents

su6#ission o* said report as evident$5 *or the purpose dishar%in% the onus o* provin%

petitioners enroah#ent on the su6+et pare$, as a$$e%ed in the o#p$aint.As the part5

assertin% the ontrar5 proposition, petitioner annot e)pedient$5 dispara%e the

ad#issi6i$it5 and pro6ative va$ue o* said surve5 p$an to o#pensate *or his *ai$ure to

prove his on assertions.

Petitioner is, *ina$$5, out on a $i#6 in *au$tin% the Court o* Appea$s ith *ai$ure to

app$5 the *irst para%raph o* Arti$e &1 o* the Civi$ Code o* the Phi$ippines8/9 in

re$ation to the $ease he $ai#s to have on$uded ith one !aria sa6e$ Poteniano

Padi$$a S5$ianten%. In the a6sene o* proo* o* his $essors tit$e or respondents prior

2no$ed%e o* said ontrat o* $ease, petitioners harpin% over the sa#e provision si#p$5

a#ounts to an i#p$ied ad#ission that the pre#ises oupied 65 hi# $ie ithin the #etes

and 6ounds o* the su6+et pare$. Even then, the reso$ution o* said issue is $ear$5

inappropriate sine e+et#ent ases are su##ar5 ations intended to provide an

e)peditious #anner *or protetin% possession or ri%ht to possession ithout invo$ve#ent

o* tit$e.89 !oreover, i* a de*endants #ere assertion o* onership in an e+et#ent ase

i$$ not oust the !eTC o* its su##ar5 +urisdition, 819 e *ai$ to see h5 it shou$d 6e

an5 di**erent in this ase here petitioner #ere$5 a$$e%ed his $essors supposed tit$e over

the su6+et pare$.























HERE-ORE, the petition is DENIED *or $a2 o* #erit.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Assoiate 4ustie

E CONCUR

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Assoiate 4ustie

Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION /ARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Assoiate 4ustie Assoiate 4ustie

0OSE CATRAL /ENDOZA

Assoiate 4ustie

ATTESTATION

I attest that the on$usions in the a6ove Deision ere reahed in onsu$tation 6e*ore

the ase as assi%ned to the riter o* the opinion o* the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Assoiate 4ustie

Chairperson, Seond Division

CERTI-ICATION

Pursuant to Setion &3, Arti$e III o* the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons

Attestation, it is here65 erti*ied that the on$usions in the a6ove Deision ere



reahed in onsu$tation 6e*ore the ase as assi%ned to the riter o* the opinion o* the

Courts Division.

RE#NATO S. PUNOChie* 4ustie

" Per Speia$ Order No. >3', Assoiate 4ustie 4ose Catra$ !endo@a is here65 desi%nated as Additiona$ !e#6er o* the

Seond Division in p$ae o* Assoiate 4ustie Ro6erto A. A6ad, ho is on O**iia$ Leave *ro# Apri$ ->, '(&(.8&9 Rollo, pp. &-13.8'9 Reords, p. &(a.839 ivenia ide$, !a)i#o !ahipus, 4r., ?er#i%i$do !an%u6at, Epi*anio Caso$ita II, Er$inda Inion%, Ed%ar A#ador,

4oseph Duer#e, Ro$ando 4a#an%, Ro#eo 7ranada, Ro#eo i%ueroa, Brando 7a$iso, Eunie Banaa%, Cei$ia

A%onos, Beth De 7u@#an, !ario P. Ta#po$, E$i@a6eth raniso, Ed#undo R. Bare$a, Re5na$do 7ranada, edri

Banana%, Estanis$ao 4. La uente and Dani$o P. 4erusa$e#.89 Reords, pp. &/-'(.8/9 Rollo, pp. '-3(.89 Id. at 3&-3.819 Reords, pp. /0-.8>9 Id. at />.809 Id. at 1-11.8&(9 Id. at &/.8&&9 Id. at &'>.8&'9 Rollo, pp. 31-3.8&39 Id. at 3.8&9 Id. at -/(.8&/9 Id. at &/-'&.8&9 Id. at 1(-1&.8&19 Id. at 10->(.8&>9 Id. at 0.8&09 Tubiano v. Razo , 30( Phi$. >3, >> <'(((=.8'(9 Corpuz v. Court of Appeals, 7.R. No. &&1((/, &0 4une &001, '1 SCRA '1/, '10.8'&9 Setion &. Who may institute proceedings, and hen. Su6+et to the provisions o* the ne)t sueedin% setion, a person

deprived o* the possession o* an5 $and or 6ui$din% 65 *ore, inti#idation, threat, strate%5 or stea$th, or a $essor,

vendor, vendee, or other person a%ainst ho# the possession o* an5 $and or 6ui$din% is un$a*u$$5 ithhe$d a*ter the e)piration or ter#ination o* the ri%ht to ho$d possession, 65 virtue o* a ontrat, e)press or i#p$ied, or the $e%a$

representatives or assi%ns o* an5 suh $essor, vendor, vendee, or other person #a5 at an5ti#e ithin one <&= 5ear

a*ter suh un$a*u$ deprivation or ithho$din% o* possession, 6rin% an ation in the proper !uniipa$ Tria$ Court

a%ainst the person or persons un$a*u$$5 ithho$din% or deprivin% o* possession, or an5 person or persons$ai#in% under the#, *or the restitution o* suh possession, to%ether ith da#a%es and osts.

8''9 Deltaventures Resources, Inc. v. Cabato, 3> Phi$. '/', '/0-'( <'(((=.8'39 Gochan v. Young , ( Phi$. 3, 13-1 <'((&=.8'9 unny !otor ales, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, &/ Phi$. /&1, /'( <'((&=.8'/9 Ty v. Court of Appeals , (> Phi$. 103, 10> <'((&=.8'9 "ilipinas #an$ v. Court of Appeals, 3>3 Phi$. &>, '> <'(((=.8'19 Ta%ano v. &rtiz, 3/3 Phi$. 11/, 1>( <&00>=.8'>9 De 'a Cruz v. Court of Appeals , 7.R. No. &30', Dee#6er '((, /&( SCRA &(3, &&/.8'09 Ca(ayon v. ps. #atuyong , 7.R. No. &0&&>, & e6ruar5 '((, >' SCRA &, 1&-1'.83(9 &ng v. "arel , (1 Phi$. &(/, &(/3 <'((&=.83&9 Reords, pp. 0 and &/.83'9 Rollo, pp. '/-'>.8339 )eirs of De%etrio !elchor v. !elchor , & Phi$. 31, 3- <'((3=.839 )abagat Grill v. D!C*+rban "roperty Developer, Inc., 0 Phi$. (3, &0 <'((/=.83/9 uizon v. Juan , 7.R. No. &1&', &1 4une '((>, // SCRA (&, &'.839

Reords, p. '&.8319 Id. at >.83>9 &ng v. "arel, supra note 3(.8309 Rollo, pp. &> and /0.8(9 Reords, pp. 3&(-3&.8&9 Al%ocera v. &ng, 7.R. No. &1(10, &> e6ruar5 '((>, / SCRA &, &1>.8'9 !agaling v. &ng , 7.R. No. &13333, &3 Au%ust '((>, /' SCRA &/', &1(-&1&.839 Gate-ay lectronics Corporation v. Asianban$ Corporation, 7.R. No. &1'(&, &> Dee#6er '((>, /1 SCRA 0>,

1&>-1&0.89 Republic v. /0a. De 1eri, > Phi$. >', >' <'((=.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/180542.htm#_ftnref2


































































































































8/9 Art. &1. The purhaser o* a piee o* $and hih is under a $ease that is not reorded in the Re%istr5 o* Propert5 #a5

ter#inate the $ease, save hen there is a stipu$ation to the ontrar5 in the ontrat o* sa$e, or hen the purhaser

2nos o* the e)istene o* the $ease.89 Cayabyab v. Go%ez 0e A2uino, 7.R. No.&/001, / Septe#6er '((1, /3' SCRA 3/3, 3&.819 Tecson v. Gutierrez, 03 Phi$. &3', &3> <'((/=.












Recovery of possession; forcible entry -G.R. No. 142676

G.R. No. 142676

"x x x.

There is *ori6$e entr5 or 0esahucio hen one is deprived o* ph5sia$ possession

o* $and or 6ui$din% 65 #eans o* *ore, inti#idation, threat, strate%5 or stea$th. In suh

ases, the possession is i$$e%a$ *ro# the 6e%innin% and the 1!si2 i3uir4 2eters o

5ho h!s the prior possessio de !acto. In *i$in% *ori6$e entr5 ases, the $a te$$s us

that to a$$e%ations are #andator5 *or the #uniipa$ ourt to a;uire +urisdition: *irst,

the p$ainti** #ust a$$e%e prior ph5sia$ possession o* the propert5, and seond, he #ust

a$so a$$e%e that he as deprived o* his possession 65 an5 o* the #eans provided *or in

Setion &, Ru$e 1( o* the Ru$es o* Court, i.e., 65 *ore, inti#idation, threat, strate%5, or

stea$th. It is a$so sett$ed that in the reso$ution thereo*, hat is i#portant is deter#inin%ho is entit$ed to the ph5sia$ possession o* the propert5. Indeed, !4 o6 the p!rties

5ho 2! pro"e prior possessio de !acto 7!4 re2o"er su2h possessio e"e 6ro7 the

o5er hi7se86 si2e su2h 2!ses pro2ee9 i9epe9et84 o6 !4 28!i7 o6

o5ership and the p$ainti** needs #ere$5 to prove prior possession 0e facto and undue

deprivation thereo*.8//9

Tit$e is never in issue in a *ori6$e entr5 ase, the ourt shou$d 6ase its deision on

ho had prior ph5sia$ possession. The #ain thin% to 6e proven in an ation *or *ori6$e

entr5 is prior possession and that sa#e as $ost throu%h *ore, inti#idation, threat,

strate%5, and stea$th, so that it 6ehooves the ourt to restore possession re%ard$ess o* tit$e

or onership.8/9

Fe #ore e)tensive$5 disussed in "a(uyo v. Court of Appeals8/19 that:

O5ership or the right to possess !risig 6ro7 o5ership is ot !t issue i ! !2tio 6or

re2o"er4 o6 possessio. The parties annot present evidene to prove onership or ri%ht to $e%a$

possession e)ept to prove the nature o* the possession hen neessar5 to reso$ve the issue o* ph5sia$

possession. The sa#e is true hen the de*endant asserts the a6sene o* tit$e over the propert5. The

!1se2e o6 tit8e o"er the 2oteste9 8ot is ot ! grou9 6or the 2ourts to 5ithho89 re8ie6 6ro7 the

p!rties i ! e:e2t7et 2!se.

The on$5 ;uestion that the ourts #ust reso$ve in e+et#ent proeedin%s is - ho is entit$ed to the ph5sia$ possession o* the pre#ises, that is, to the possession 0e facto and not to the possession 0e (ure. Itdoes not even #atter i* a part5Js tit$e to the propert5 is ;uestiona6$e, or hen 6oth parties intruded into

pu6$i $and and their app$iations to on the $and have 5et to 6e approved 65 the proper %overn#ent

a%en5. Reg!r98ess o6 the !2tu!8 2o9itio o6 the tit8e to the propert4, the p!rt4 i pe!2e!18e 3uiet

possessio sh!88 ot 1e thro5 out 14 ! strog h!9, "io8e2e or terror. Neither is the un$a*u$ithho$din% o* propert5 a$$oed. Courts 5i88 !85!4s upho89 respe2t 6or prior possessio.

Thus, ! p!rt4 5ho 2! pro"e prior possessio 2! re2o"er su2h possessio e"e !g!ist the

o5er hi7se86. h!te"er 7!4 1e the 2h!r!2ter o6 his possessio, i6 he h!s i his 6!"or prior

possessio i ti7e, he h!s the se2urit4 th!t etit8es hi7 to re7!i o the propert4 uti8 ! perso

5ith ! 1etter right 8!56u884 e:e2ts hi7. To repeat, the on$5 issue that the ourt has to sett$e in an

e+et#ent suit is the ri%ht to ph5sia$ possession.8/>9 <E#phases ours.=

Based on the *ore%oin%, e *ind that the RTC-Branh >> erred in orderin% thedis#issa$ o* Civi$ Case No. >'> even 6e*ore o#p$etion o* the proeedin%s 6e*ore the

!eTC. At the ti#e said ase as ordered dis#issed 65 RTC-Branh >>, the !eTC had

on$5 %one so *ar as ho$din% a hearin% on and eventua$$5 %rantin% !uKo@Js pra5er *or the

issuane o* a rit o* pre$i#inar5 #andator5 in+untion.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/142676.htm



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/142676.htm#_ftn55















!uKo@ a$$e%es in her o#p$aint in Civi$ Case No. >'> that she had 6een in prior

possession o* the su6+et propert5 sine it as turned-over to her 65 the sheri** on

4anuar5 &(, &00, pursuant to the A$ias Frit o* E)eution issued 65 the RTC-Branh 0/

to i#p$e#ent the *ina$ +ud%#ent in Civi$ Case No. G-'>/>(. The *atua$ issue o* ho

as in prior possession o* the su6+et propert5 shou$d 6e $iti%ated 6eteen the parties

re%ard$ess o* hether or not the *ina$ +ud%#ent in Civi$ Case No. G-'>/>( e)tended tothe spouses Chan. ?ene, the penden5 o* the $atter issue in Civi$ Case No. G-'>/>(

6e*ore the RTC-Branh 0/ did not arrant the dis#issa$ o* Civi$ Case No. >'> 6e*ore

the !eTC on the %round o* litis pen0entia. The to ases ou$d proeed independent$5

o* one another.

Sa#ue$ 7o Chan and Att5. a6ut aver that the spouses Chan have never $ost

possession o* the su6+et propert5 sine a;uirin% the sa#e *ro# BPI a#i$5 in

&00(. This is a orth5 de*ense to !uKo@Js o#p$aint *or *ori6$e entr5, hih Sa#ue$

7o Chan and Att5. a6ut shou$d su6stantiate ith evidene in the ontinuation o* the

proeedin%s in Civi$ Case No. >'> 6e*ore the !eTC.

In addition, Civi$ Case No. >'>, a *ori6$e entr5 ase, is %overned 65 the

Revised Ru$e on Su##ar5 Proedure, Setion &0 hereo* provides:SEC. %+. "rohibite0 plea0ings an0 %otions. The *o$$oin% p$eadin%s, #otions, or petitions sha$$ not 6e a$$oed in the

ases overed 65 this Ru$e:

) ) ) )

<%= Petition *or certiorari, %an0a%us, or prohi6ition a%ainst an5 inter$outor5 order issued 65 the ourt.

The purpose o* the Ru$e on Su##ar5 Proedure is to ahieve an e)peditious and

ine)pensive deter#ination o* ases ithout re%ard to tehnia$ ru$es. Pursuant to this

o6+etive, the Ru$e prohi6its petitions *or certiorari, $i2e a nu#6er o* other p$eadin%s, in

order to prevent unneessar5 de$a5s and to e)pedite the disposition o* ases.8/09) ) ).M





Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECN! !#SN

G.R. No. 174191 January 30, 2013

NENITA QUAIT! "OO#S CORPORATION, Petitione$%&s.CRISOSTOMO GAA$O, A#EAI#A GAA$O, an% &ENAI#A GAA$O'AMAC$AR, Respon'ents.

! E C S N

$RION, J.:

(e $esol&e the petition fo$ $e&ie) on ce$tio$a$i1 of petitione$ Nenita *ualit+ ,oo's Co$po$ation

-N*,C to nullit+ the ,eb$ua$+ 22% 2//6 !ecision2 an' the 0ul+ 1% 2//6 $esolution of the Cou$tof ppeals -C in C3G.R. SP No. 77//6. he C $e&e$se' the 'ecision4 of the Re5ional $ialCou$t -RC of !a&ao Cit+% $anch 17% )hich affi$e' in toto the 'ecision8 of the Municipal $ialCou$t in Cities -MCC% !a&ao Cit+% $anch 8% in Ci&il Case No. 1/%98:3E3/1. he MCC'isisse' the coplaint fo$ fo$cible ent$+ an' 'aa5es% )hich $espon'ents C$isostoo Galabo%

'elai'a Galabo% an' ;enai'a Galabo3lacha$ file' a5ainst N*,C.

he ,actual ntece'ents

he 'ispute in the case $elates to the possession of a pa$cel of lan' 'esc$ibe' as <ot No. 1/2%PS!34//6/% the fo$e$ $a=a=i Plantation in Ma$apan5i% o$il% !a&ao Cit+ )ith an a$ea of six

thousan' se&ent+3fou$ s>ua$e ete$s -6%/74 s>. ..

s the C sua$i?e' in the assaile' 'ecision% the $espon'ents a$e the hei$s of !onato Galabo.n 194:% !onato obtaine' <ot No. 722% Ca'31/2% a po$tion of the $a=a=i Plantation in Ma$apan5i%o$il% !a&ao Cit+% o)ne' b+ National baca an' the$ ,ibe$s Co$po$ation. !onato an' the$espon'ents assue' that <ot No. 722 inclu'e' <ot No. 1/2% pe$ the o$i5inal su$&e+ of 1916 to192/.

(hen the oa$' of <i>ui'ato$s -< too= o&e$ the a'inist$ation of the $a=a=i Plantation in the198/s% it ha' <ot No. 722 $esu$&e+e'. lle5e'l+% the $esu$&e+ 'i' not inclu'e <ot No. 1/2@ thus%)hen !onato ac>ui$e' $ansfe$ Ce$tificate of itle No. 3214966 fo$ <ot No. 722 on p$il 26% 198%<ot No. 1/2 )as not inclu'e'. he $espon'ents% ho)e&e$% continue to posses% occup+ an'

culti&ate <ot No. 1/2.

(hen N*,C opene' its business in Ma$apan5i% o$il% !a&ao Cit+ in the late 198/s% it alle5e'l+offe$e' to bu+ <ot No. 1/2. !onato 'ecline' an' to )a$' off fu$the$ offe$s% put up "Not ,o$ Sale"an' "No $espassin5" si5ns on the p$ope$t+. n the 197/s% C$isostoo fence' off the enti$epe$iete$ of <ot No. 1/2 an' built his house on it.

n u5ust 19% 1994% the $espon'ents $ecei&e' a lette$ f$o Santos Nantin 'ean'in5 that the+&acate <ot No. 1/2. Santos claie' o)ne$ship of this lot pe$ the !ee' of $ansfe$ of Ri5hts-!ee' of $ansfe$7 'ate' 0ul+ 1/% 1972% )hich the $espon'ents an' thei$ othe$ alle5e'l+execute' in SantosA fa&o$. he $espon'ents 'enie' this clai an' aintaine' that the+ ha' been

occup+in5 <ot No. 1/2% )hich the < itself $eco5ni?e' pe$ its lette$s:

an' the Ce$tification9

'ate' p$il 12% 2/// confi$in5 !onato as the lon53tie occupant an' a)a$'ee of the p$ope$t+. ope$fect thei$ title% the $espon'ents applie' fo$ f$ee patent o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 on Septebe$ 6% 2///.

n 0anua$+ % 2//1 an' a5ain on a late$ 'ate% N*,CAs )o$=e$s% )ith a$e' policeen of o$il%!a&ao Cit+% ente$e' b+ fo$ce <ot No. 1/2 to fence it. he $espon'ents $epo$te' the ent$+ to theautho$ities. n p$il 16% 2//1% C$isostoo $ecei&e' a lette$ f$o N*,CAs counsel 'ean'in5 thathe $eo&e his house f$o <ot No. 1/2. N*,C subse>uentl+ $eo&e' the existin5 fence an' cut'o)n &a$ious t$ees that the $espon'ents ha' plante' on the p$ope$t+.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_174191_2013.html#fnt1




















N*,C% fo$ its pa$t% claie' that Santos ie'iatel+ occupie' an' possesse' <ot No. 1/2 afte$ hepu$chase' it f$o the $espon'ents in 1972 an' 'ecla$e' it un'e$ his nae fo$ taxation pu$poses.Santos )as also 5$ante' ,$ee Patent o&e$ the p$ope$t+ b+ the u$eau of <an's% an' obtaine'$i5inal Ce$tificate of itle No. -C P34/81/ on 0une 1:% 1974. n !ecebe$ 29% 2///% thehei$s of Santos con&e+e' <ot No. 1/2 to N*,C &ia the !ee' of bsolute Sale11 of e&en 'ate.N*,C then file' a petition fo$ cancellation of the $espon'entsA patent application o&e$ <ot No.1/2% )hich the <3Manila 5$ante' on p$il 19% 2//1% on the 5$oun' that !onato faile' to pe$fect

his title o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 )hich has lon5 been title' in SantosA nae.

(hen conciliation faile'% the $espon'ents file' on Septebe$ 17% 2//1 a coplaint12 fo$ fo$cibleent$+ )ith 'aa5es befo$e the MCC a5ainst N*,C% alle5in5 thatB -1 the+ ha' been in p$io$ph+sical possession of <ot No. 1/2@ an' -2 N*,C 'ep$i&e' the of possession th$ou5h fo$ce%intii'ation% st$ate5+% th$eats an' stealth.

he Rulin5 of the MCC

Rel+in5 on the $ulin5 of the <3Manila% the MCC 'isisse' the $espon'entsAcoplaint%1 explainin5 that the >uestions $aise' befo$e it $e>ui$e' technical 'ete$ination b+ the

a'inist$ati&e a5enc+ )ith the expe$tise to 'ete$ine such atte$s% )hich the <3Manila 'i' inthis case.14

he MCC hel' that the pieces of e&i'ence N*,C p$esente' the !ee' of $ansfe$ the$espon'ents execute' in SantosA fa&o$% SantosA C P34/8 o&e$ <ot No. 1/2% the !ee' of

bsolute Sale in N*,CAs fa&o$% an' the fin'in5s of the <3Manila establishe' N*,CAs $i5htfulpossession o&e$ the p$ope$t+. t fu$the$ hel' thatB -1 the $espon'ents $elin>uishe' thei$ $i5htso&e$ <ot No. 1/2 )hen the+ execute' the !ee' of $ansfe$ in SantosA fa&o$@ -2 the ce$tificate oftitle o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 in SantosA nae sho)s that he )as in actual ph+sical possession sinceactual occupation is $e>ui$e' befo$e an application fo$ f$ee patent can be app$o&e'@ an' -N*,C &ali'l+ ac>ui$e' o)ne$ship o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 )hen it pu$chase' it f$o Santos% entitlin5 itto the $i5ht% aon5 othe$s% to possess the p$ope$t+ as ancilla$+ to such o)ne$ship.

he Rulin5 of the RC

he $espon'ents appeale' the MCC 'ecision to the RC but the latte$ cou$t 'enie' theappeal.18 s the MCC 'i'% the RC $elie' on the fin'in5s of the <3Manila. t hel' thatB -1 the$espon'ents faile' to pe$fect )hate&e$ $i5ht the+ i5ht ha&e ha' o&e$ <ot No. 1/2@ an' -2 the+a$e estoppe' f$o asse$tin5 an+ $i5ht o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 since the+ ha&e lon5 t$ansfe$$e' thep$ope$t+ an' thei$ $i5ht the$eto% to Santos in 1972.

n $esol&in5 the issue of possession of <ot No. 1/2% the RC also $esol&e' the >uestion ofo)ne$ship% as Dustifie' un'e$ the Rules% explainin5 that the N*,CAs possession of <ot No. 1/2

)as ancho$e' on a !ee' of bsolute Sale% )hile that of the $espon'ents )as base' e$el+ onthe alle5ation of possession an' occupation b+ !onato% an' not on an+ title.16

hus% the >uestion of concu$$ent possession of <ot No. 1/2 bet)een N*,C an' the $espon'entsshoul' tilt in N*,CAs fa&o$.

(hen the RC 'enie' the $espon'entsA otion fo$ $econsi'e$ation in an o$'e$ 17 'ate' Ma$ch 8%2//% the $espon'ents ele&ate' thei$ case to the C &ia a petition fo$ $e&ie).1:

he Rulin5 of the C

he $espon'ents claie' befo$e the C that the RC e$$e' )hen it hel' that N*,C ha' p$io$possession of <ot No. 1/2% base' solel+ on its !ee' of bsolute Sale. he+ a$5ue'% aon5othe$s% thatB -1 Santos shoul' ha&e ta=en the necessa$+ steps to oust the $espon'ents ha' hebeen in possession of <ot No. 1/2 be5innin5 1972@ -2 Santos coul' not ha&e &ali'l+ obtaine' titleo&e$ <ot No. 1/2 since it )as still in the nae of the Republic of the Philippines -Republic as of19:/@19 an' - N*,C no lon5e$ ha' to fo$cibl+ e&ict the $espon'ents in 0anua$+ 2//1 if it ha'been in possession of <ot No. 1/2 afte$ it bou5ht this lan' f$o Santos in 2///.
























he C foun' $e&e$sible e$$o$ in the RCAs 'ecision@ thus% it 5$ante' the $espon'entsA petition an'o$'e$e' N*,C to &acate <ot No. 1/2. he C explaine' that a plaintiff% in a fo$cible ent$+ case%onl+ has to p$o&e p$io$ ate$ial an' ph+sical possession of the p$ope$t+ in liti5ation an' un'ue'ep$i&ation of it b+ eans of fo$ce% intii'ation% th$eat% st$ate5+ o$ stealth. hese% the$espon'ents a&e$$e' in the coplaint an' sufficientl+ p$o&e'% thus entitlin5 the to $eco&e$possession of <ot No. 1/2. Rel+in5 on the 'oct$ine of p$esuption of $e5ula$it+ in thepe$fo$ance of official 'ut+% the C especiall+ too= note of the lette$s an' the Ce$tification )hich

the < sent to the $espon'ents ac=no)le'5in5 !onato as the a)a$'ee of <ot No. 1/2 an' the$espon'ents as the actual occupants an' possesso$s.

n b$ushin5 asi'e the RCAs fin'in5s% the C $ule' thatB -1 !onatoAs failu$e to pe$fect his title o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 shoul' not )ei5h a5ainst the $espon'ents as the issue in a fo$cible ent$+ case is oneof possession 'e facto an' not of possession 'e Du$e@ an' -2 N*,CAs o)ne$ship of <ot No. 1/2is besi'e the point as o)ne$ship is be+on' the pu$&ie) of an eDectent case. he title o$ $i5ht ofpossession% it st$esse'% is ne&e$ an issue in a fo$cible ent$+ suit. he C% ho)e&e$% 'enie' the$espon'entsA p$a+e$ fo$ o$al 'aa5es an' atto$ne+As fees% an' $eDecte' the othe$ issues $aise'fo$ bein5 i$$ele&ant.

n its 0ul+ 1% 2//6 $esolution%2/

the C 'enie' N*,CAs otion fo$ $econsi'e$ation% p$optin5 theN*,CAs p$esent $ecou$se.

he Petition

N*,C a$5ues that the C e$$e' in hol'in5 that the $espon'ents ha' p$io$ ph+sical possession of<ot No. 1/2.21 t clais that% fi$st% in $e&e$sin5 the RC fin'in5s% the C $elie' solel+ on the lette$san' the Ce$tification of the <%22 )hich has been cont$o&e$te' b+ the follo)in5 pieces ofe&i'ence% aon5 othe$sB -1 the !ee' of $ansfe$ that the $espon'ents execute' in fa&o$ ofSantos@ -2 the o$'e$ of the u$eau of <an's app$o&in5 SantosA patent application@ - SantosAC P34/8@ an' -4 the !ee' of bsolute Sale that Santos execute' in fa&o$ of N*,C.

N*,C aintains that the u$eau of <an's )oul' not ha&e 5$ante' SantosA f$ee patent applicationha' he not been in possession of <ot No. 1/2 because continue' occupation an' culti&ation%eithe$ b+ hiself o$ b+ his p$e'ecesso$3in3inte$est% of the p$ope$t+ is a $e>ui$eent fo$ such 5$antun'e$ the Public <an' ct. + the &e$+ 'efinition of "occup+%" Santos is the$efo$e 'eee' to ha&epossesse' <ot No. 1/2 p$io$ to 1974% the +ea$ his f$ee patent application )as 5$ante'%2 an'un'e$ the p$inciple of tac=in5 of possession% he is 'eee' to ha&e ha' possession of <ot No. 1/2not onl+ f$o 1972% )hen the $espon'ents t$ansfe$$e' it to hi% but also f$o the tie !onatoac>ui$e' the lot in 194:. hus% Santos ha' no $eason to oust the $espon'ents since he ha' beenin possession of <ot No. 1/2 be5innin5 1972% b+ &i$tue of the t$ansfe$.24

Secon'% the $espon'ents ha' no 'ocuents to p$o&e that the+ )e$e in actual occupation an'

culti&ation of <ot No. 1/2 the $eason the+ 'i' not hee' the <As $e>uest to pe$fect thei$ titleo&e$ it. ,inall+% citin5 Du$isp$u'ence%28 N*,C a$5ues that the RC $i5htl+ $ule' on the issue of itso)ne$ship o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 in 'eci'in5 the issue of p$io$ ph+sical possession as the Rules allo)this% b+ )a+ of exception.26

he Case fo$ Respon'ents

he $espon'entsA a$5uents closel+ a'he$e to the CAs $ulin5. he+ a$5ue that N*,C% $athe$than eetin5 the issues% focuse' on its alle5e' o)ne$ship of <ot No. 1/2 an' the possessionflo)in5 out of its o)ne$ship. he+ 'en+ e&e$ eetin5 Santos an' the+ aintain that thei$continue' possession an' occupation of <ot No. 1/2 belie this suppose' sale. E&en 5$antin5 thatthis sale occu$$e'% Santos coul' still not ha&e ac>ui$e' an+ $i5ht o&e$ <ot No. 1/2 fo$ as of 19:/%it )as still in the nae of the Republic.27 hus% the+ coul' not ha&e t$ansfe$$e' o)ne$ship of <otNo. 1/2 to Santos% an' he cannot clai o)ne$ship of <ot No. 1/2 b+ $eason of this sale. 2:

n the othe$ han'% the $espon'entsA open% continuous% exclusi&e% noto$ious an' a'&e$sepossession of <ot No. 1/2 fo$ th$ee 'eca'es% couple' b+ a clai of o)ne$ship% 5a&e the &este'$i5ht o$ inte$est o&e$ the p$ope$t+.29his &este' $i5ht is e>ui&alent to an actuall+ issue' ce$tificateof title so that the execution an' 'eli&e$+ of the title is a e$e fo$alit+. o sa+ the least% N*,C























'i' not ha&e to sen' the a fo$al 'ean' to &acate/ an' &iolentl+ oust the f$o the p$eisesha' it been in actual possession of the p$ope$t+ as claie'.1

<astl+% the $espon'ents in&o=e' the settle' $ule that the Cou$tAs Du$is'iction in a Rule 48 petition isliite' onl+ to $e&ie)in5 e$$o$s of la). N*,C faile' to sho) isapp$ehension of facts in the CAsfin'in5s to Dustif+ a 'epa$tu$e f$o this $ule.2

he Cou$tAs Rulin5

(e fi$st a''$ess the p$oce'u$al issue $aise'. Resol&in5 the contentions $aise' necessa$il+$e>ui$es us to 'el&e into factual issues% a cou$se not p$ope$ in a petition fo$ $e&ie) on ce$tio$a$i%fo$ a Rule 48 petition $esol&es onl+ >uestions of la)% not >uestions of fact. his $ule is $ea' )iththe e>uall+ settle' 'ictu that factual fin'in5s of the C a$e 5ene$all+ conclusi&e on the pa$tiesan' a$e the$efo$e not $e&ie)able b+ this Cou$t.4 + )a+ of exception% )e $esol&e factual issues)hen% as he$e% conflict atten'e' the fin'in5s of the MCC an' of the RC% on one han'% an' ofthe C% on the othe$. f ino$ note% but )hich )e 'ee ipo$tant to point% the petition nee'lessl+iplea'e' the C% in b$each of Section 4% Rule 48 of the Rules of Cou$t.8

Substanti&el+% the =e+ issue this case p$esents is p$io$ ph+sical possession )hethe$ N*,C ha'been in p$io$ ph+sical possession of <ot No. 1/2.

(e $ule in the ne5ati&e.

,i$st% on the $eliance on the < lette$s an' Ce$tification an' the CAs alle5e' 'is$e5a$' ofN*,CAs e&i'ence. o p$o&e p$io$ ph+sical possession of <ot No. 1/2% N*,C p$esente' the !ee'of $ansfe$% SantosA C P34/8% the !ee' of bsolute Sale% an' the $'e$ of the u$eau of<an's app$o&in5 SantosA f$ee patent application. n p$esentin5 these pieces of e&i'ence% N*,C isappa$entl+ ista=en as it a+ ha&e e>uate' possession that is at issue as an att$ibute ofo)ne$ship to actual possession. he latte$ t+pe of possession is% ho)e&e$% 'iffe$ent f$o an' has'iffe$ent le5al iplications than the fo$e$. (hile these 'ocuents a+ bea$ )ei5ht an' a$eate$ial in contests o&e$ o)ne$ship of <ot No. 1/2% the+ 'o not pe$ se sho) N*,CAs actualpossession of this p$ope$t+.

(e a5$ee that o)ne$ship ca$$ies the $i5ht of possession% but the possession conteplate' b+ theconcept of o)ne$ship is not exactl+ the sae as the possession in issue in a fo$cible ent$+ case.Possession in fo$cible ent$+ suits $efe$s onl+ to possession 'e facto% o$ actual o$ ate$ialpossession% an' not possession flo)in5 out of o)ne$ship@ these a$e 'iffe$ent le5al concepts 6 fo$)hich the la) p$o&i'es 'iffe$ent $ee'ies fo$ $eco&e$+ of possession.7 s )e explaine' in PaDu+o&. Cou$t of ppeals%: an' a5ain in the o$e $ecent cases of Gon?a5a &. Cou$t of ppeals%9 !eG$ano &. <acaba%4/ an' <a5a?o &. So$iano%41 the )o$' "possession" in fo$cible ent$+ suits $efe$s tonothin5 o$e than p$io$ ph+sical possession o$ possession 'e facto% not possession 'e Du$e 42 o$

le5al possession in the sense conteplate' in ci&il la).4 itle is not the issue%44 an' the absenceof it "is not a 5$oun' fo$ the cou$ts to )ithhol' $elief f$o the pa$ties in an eDectent case."48

hus% in a fo$cible ent$+ case% "a pa$t+ )ho can p$o&e p$io$ possession can $eco&e$ suchpossession e&en a5ainst the o)ne$ hiself. (hate&e$ a+ be the cha$acte$ of his possession% ifhe has in his fa&o$ p$io$ possession in tie% he has the secu$it+ that entitles hi to $eain on thep$ope$t+ until a pe$son )ith a bette$ $i5ht la)full+ eDects hi."46 e cannot be eDecte' b+ fo$ce%&iolence o$ te$$o$ 33 not e&en b+ its o)ne$s.47 ,o$ these $easons% an action fo$ fo$cible ent$+ issua$+ in natu$e aie' onl+ at p$o&i'in5 an expe'itious eans of p$otectin5 actualpossession.4: EDectent suits a$e inten'e' to "p$e&ent b$each of x x x peace an' c$iinal 'iso$'e$ an' to copel the pa$t+ out of possession to $espect an' $eso$t to the la) alone to obtain )hat heclais is his."49 hus% lest the pu$pose of these sua$+ p$ocee'in5s be 'efeate'% an+'iscussion o$ issue of o)ne$ship is a&oi'e' unless it is necessa$+ to $esol&e the issue of 'e factopossession.

(e a5$ee )ith the $espon'ents that instea' of s>ua$el+ a''$essin5 the issue of possession an'p$esentin5 e&i'ence sho)in5 that N*,C o$ Santos ha' been in actual possession of <ot No. 1/2%the fo$e$ e$el+ na$$ate' ho) it ac>ui$e' o)ne$ship of <ot No. 1/2 an' p$esente' 'ocuents tothis effect. ts alle5ation that Santos occupie' <ot No. 1/2 in 1972 is unco$$obo$ate'. E&en thetax 'ecla$ations un'e$ SantosA nae a$e ha$'l+ of )ei5ht@ "tax 'ecla$ations an' $ealt+ tax













































pa+ents a$e not conclusi&e p$oof of possession. he+ a$e e$el+ 5oo' in'icia of possession inthe concept of o)ne$"8/ but not necessa$il+ of the actual possession $e>ui$e' in fo$cible ent$+cases.

Section 1% Rule 7/ of the Rules of Cou$t p$o&i'es )hen an action fo$ fo$cible ent$+% an' unla)ful'etaine$% is p$ope$B

SECN 1. (ho a+ institute p$ocee'in5s% an' )hen. F SubDect to the p$o&isions of the nextsuccee'in5 section% a pe$son 'ep$i&e' of the possession of an+ lan' o$ buil'in5 b+ fo$ce%intii'ation% th$eat% st$ate5+% o$ stealth% o$ a lesso$% &en'o$% &en'ee% o$ othe$ pe$son a5ainst)ho the possession of an+ lan' o$ buil'in5 is unla)full+ )ithhel' afte$ the expi$ation o$te$ination of the $i5ht to hol' possession% b+ &i$tue of an+ cont$act% exp$ess o$ iplie'% o$ thele5al $ep$esentati&es o$ assi5ns of an+ such lesso$% &en'o$% &en'ee% o$ othe$ pe$son a+ at an+tie )ithin one -1 +ea$ afte$ such unla)ful 'ep$i&ation o$ )ithhol'in5 of possession% b$in5 anaction in the p$ope$ Municipal $ial Cou$t a5ainst the pe$son o$ pe$sons unla)full+ )ithhol'in5 o$'ep$i&in5 of possession% o$ an+ pe$son o$ pe$sons claiin5 un'e$ the% fo$ the $estitution of suchpossession% to5ethe$ )ith 'aa5es an' costs. ephasis ou$s@ italics supplie'H

In'e$ this p$o&ision% fo$ a fo$cible ent$+ suit to p$ospe$% the plaintiff ust alle5e an' p$o&eB -1p$io$ ph+sical possession of the p$ope$t+@ an' -2 unla)ful 'ep$i&ation of it b+ the 'efen'antth$ou5h fo$ce% intii'ation% st$ate5+% th$eat o$ stealth.81 s in an+ ci&il case% the bu$'en of p$ooflies )ith the coplainants -the $espon'ents in this case )ho ust establish thei$ case b+p$epon'e$ance of e&i'ence. n the p$esent case% the $espon'ents sufficientl+ alle5e' an' p$o&e'the $e>ui$e' eleents.

o suppo$t its position% N*,C in&o=es the p$inciple of tac=in5 of possession% that is% )hen itbou5ht <ot No. 1/2 f$o Santos on !ecebe$ 29% 2///% its possession is% b+ ope$ation of la)%tac=e' to that of Santos an' e&en ea$lie$% o$ at the tie !onato ac>ui$e' <ot No. 1/2 in 194:.

N*,CAs $eliance on this p$inciple is isplace'. $ue% the la)82 allo)s a p$esent possesso$ to tac=his possession to that of his p$e'ecesso$3in3inte$est to be 'eee' in possession of the p$ope$t+fo$ the pe$io' $e>ui$e' b+ la). Possession in this $e5a$'% ho)e&e$% pe$tains to possession 'e Du$ean' the tac=in5 is a'e fo$ the pu$pose of copletin5 the tie $e>ui$e' fo$ ac>ui$in5 o$ losin5o)ne$ship th$ou5h p$esc$iption. (e $eite$ate possession in fo$cible ent$+ suits $efe$s to nothin5o$e than ph+sical possession% not le5al possession.

he C b$ushe' asi'e N*,CAs a$5uent on the $espon'entsA failu$e to pe$fect thei$ title o&e$ <otNo. 1/2. t hel' that the issue in this case is not of possession 'e Du$e% let alone o)ne$ship o$ title%but of possession 'e facto. 1âwphi1 (e a5$ee )ith the C@ the 'iscussions abo&e a$e clea$ on this point.

(e a5$ee% too% as )e ha&e in'icate' in passin5 abo&e% that the issue of o)ne$ship can be

ate$ial an' $ele&ant in $esol&in5 the issue of possession. he Rules in fact exp$essl+ allo) thisBSection 16% Rule 7/ of the Rules of Cou$t8 p$o&i'es that the issue of o)ne$ship shall be $esol&e'in 'eci'in5 the issue of possession if the >uestion of possession is inte$t)ine' )ith the issue ofo)ne$ship. ut this p$o&ision is onl+ an exception an' is allo)e' onl+ in this liite' instance33 to'ete$ine the issue of possession an' onl+ if the >uestion of possession cannot be $esol&e')ithout 'eci'in5 the issue of o)ne$ship.84 Sa&e fo$ this instance% e&i'ence of o)ne$ship is not atall ate$ial% as in the p$esent case.88

s a final $eite$ati&e note% this !ecision 'eals onl+ )ith 'e facto possession an' is )ithoutp$eDu'ice to an app$op$iate action fo$ $eco&e$+ of possession base' on o)ne$ship.

(ERE,RE% in li5ht of these consi'e$ations% )e he$eb+ !ENJ the petition@ the 'ecision 'ate',eb$ua$+ 22% 2//6 an' the $esolution 'ate' 0ul+ 1% 2//6 of the Cou$t of ppeals in C3G.R. SPNo. 77//6 a$e he$eb+ ,,RME!.

S R!ERE!.

ARTURO #. $RION ssociate 0ustice

















(E CNCIRB

ANTONIO T. CARPIO ssociate 0ustice

Chai$pe$son

MARIANO C. #E CASTIO ssociate 0ustice

JOSE PORTUGA PERE& ssociate 0ustice

ESTEA M. PERAS'$ERNA$E ssociate 0ustice

E S N

attest that the conclusions in the abo&e !ecision ha' been $eache' in consultation befo$e thecase )as assi5ne' to the )$ite$ of the opinion of the Cou$tKs !i&ision.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

ssociate 0usticeChai$pe$son% Secon' !i&ision

C E R , C N

Pu$suant to Section 1% $ticle # of the Constitution% an' the !i&ision Chai$pe$sonKs ttestation% ce$tif+ that the conclusions in the abo&e !ecision ha' been $eache' in consultation befo$e thecase )as assi5ne' to the )$ite$ of the opinion of the Cou$tKs !i&ision.

MARIA OUR#ES P. A. SERENOChief 0ustice

"oo(no()*

1 !ate' Septebe$ 7. 2//6 an' file' on Septebe$ 11% 2//6 un'e$ Rule 48 of the 1997Rules of Ci&il P$oce'u$e% $ollo. pp. 1732.

2 Penne' b+ ssociate 0ustice Ro'$i5o ,. <i. 0$.% an' concu$$e' in b+ ssociate 0usticese$esita !+3<iacco ,lo$es. Roulo #. o$Da% Raon R. Ga$cia% an' Rica$'o R. Rosa$io@ i'.at 2763292.

'. at 9342.

4 !ate' No&ebe$ 29% 2//2. he case )as 'oc=ete' as Ci&il Case No. 29% 1932//2@ i'.at 143181. Penne' b+ 0u'5e Renato . ,uentes.

8 !ate' ,eb$ua$+ 2/% 2//2@ i'. at 1123122. Penne' b+ P$esi'in5 0u'5e !a+'e)s !.#illao$.

6 '. at 167.

7 '. at 6:369.

: '. at 68366.

9 '. at 67.

1/ '. at 7137.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_174191_2013.html#rnt1






















11 '. at 74376.

12 '. at 4382.

1 Sup$a note 8.

14 '. at 11:3119.

18 Sup$a note 4.

16 '. at 147314:.

17 '. at 189.

1: In'e$ Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Ci&il P$oce'u$e@ i'. at 12314/.

19 '. at 77. See also the MCCAs fin'in5s@ i'. at 11:3119.

2/ Sup$a note .

21 Rollo% p. 2.

22 '. at 2:3/.

2 '. at 2732:@ cf. pa5e 8.

24 '. at 4.

28 *uote' po$tions of the Sup$ee Cou$t $ulin5 in Refu5ia &. Cou$t of ppeals% G.R. No.

11:2:4% 0ul+ 8% 1996% 28: SCR 47@ i'. at /31.

26 Sup$a@ cf. pp. 4348.

27 Sup$a note 19.

2: '. at 17319.

29 '. at 19.

/ Cop+ of the Notice to #acate@ i'. at 1::.

1 '. at 1932/.

2 '. at 2/321.

See !$. Se$iLa &. Caballe$o% 4:/ Phil. 277% 2:4 -2//4@ Go e Chon5% 0$. &. Chan% G.R.No. 18791% u5ust 24% 2//7% 81 SCR 72% :/3:1% citin5 a$cenas &. oas% G.R. No.18/21% Ma$ch 1% 2//8% 484 SCR 89% 6/6@ an' <a5a?o &. So$iano% G.R. No. 17/:64%,eb$ua$+ 16% 2/1/% 612 SCR 616% 62/.

4 !$. Se$iLa &. Caballe$o% sup$a% at 2:4.

8 SEC. 4. Contents of petition. F he petition shall be file' in ei5hteen -1: copies% )iththe o$i5inal cop+ inten'e' fo$ the cou$t bein5 in'icate' as such b+ the petitione$% an' shall-a state the full nae of the appealin5 pa$t+ as the petitione$ an' the a'&e$se pa$t+ as$espon'ent% )ithout iplea'in5 the lo)e$ cou$ts o$ Du'5es the$eof eithe$ as petitione$s o$$espon'ents. italics supplie'@ ephasis ou$sH cf. !ela C$u? &. C an' e% 89 Phil. 18:%169 -2//6.

6 Gon?a5a &. Cou$t of ppeals% G.R. No. 1/:41% ,eb$ua$+ 26% 2//:% 846 SCR 82% 842.























































7 bi'.

: G.R. No. 14664% 0une % 2//4% 4/ SCR 492% 8/9381/.

9 Sup$a note 6% at 84/.

4/ G.R. No. 18::77% 0une 16% 2//9% 8:9 SCR 14:% 18:3189% citin5 Gon?a5a &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a.

41 Sup$a note % at 621% citin5 !e G$ano &. <acaba% sup$a.

42 See also a$$ientos &. Rapal% G.R. No. 169894% 0ul+ 2/% 2/11% 684 SCR 168% 17/3171%citin5 Ca$bonilla &. bie$a% G.R. No. 17767% 0ul+ 26% 2/1/% 628 SCR 461% 469.

4 See !e G$ano &. <acaba% sup$a note 4/% at 189% citin5 Sps. i$ona &. on. leDo% 419Phil. 2:8% 29: -2//1@ cf. <a5a?o &. So$iano% sup$a note % at 621.

44 ei$s of Pe'$o <au$o$a &. Ste$lin5 echnopa$= % G.R. No. 146:18% p$il 9% 2//% 4/1

SCR 1:1% 1:4@ an' Gon?a5a &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a note 6% at 841% citin5 ei$s ofPe'$o <au$o$a &. Ste$lin5 echnopa$= % at 1:4.

48 MuLo? &. Jabut% 0$.% G.R. Nos. 142676 an' 14671:% 0une 6% 2/11% 68/ SCR 44% 76%citin5 PaDu+o &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a note :.

46 PaDu+o &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a note :% at 81/3811% citin5 Rubio &. he on.Municipal $ial Cou$t in Cities% 22 Phil. 179 -1996@ an' nta?o &. !obla'a% G.R. No.17:9/:% ,eb$ua$+ 4% 2/1/% 611 SCR 8:6% 89% citin5 PaDu+o &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$anote :.

47

ei$s of Pe'$o <au$o$a &. Ste$lin5 echnopa$= % sup$a note 44% at 1:8% citin5 MuLo? &.Cou$t of ppeals% G.R. No. 1/269% Septebe$ 2% 1992% 214 SCR 216@ 0o&en &. Cou$tof ppeals% G.R. No. :/79% u5ust 2/% 1992% 212 SCR 7//@ Ge$an Mana5eent an'Se$&ices% nc. &. Cou$t of ppeals% G.R. Nos. 76216 an' 76217% Septebe$ 14% 19:9% 177SCR 498@ an' Supia an' atioco &. *uinte$o an' +ala% 89 Phil. 12 -19.

4: See PaDu+o &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a note :% at 8113812@ !a&i' &. Co$'o&a% 8/2 Phil626% 6483646 -2//8% citin5 PaDu+o &. Cou$t of ppeals% at 8113812@ an' Pa5a'o$a &. lao%G.R. No. 168769% !ecebe$ 12% 2/11% 662 SCR 14% 293/.

49 PaDu+o &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a% at 812.

8/ !e G$ano &. <acaba% sup$a note 4/% citin5 Est$ella &. Robles% 0$.% G.R. No. 171/29%No&ebe$ 22% 2//7% 8: SCR 6/% 74@ an' Ganila &. Cou$t of ppeals% G.R. No. 18/788%0une 2:% 2//8% 461 SCR 48.

81 See Gon?a5a &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a note 6% at 84/% citin5 eDa$ &. Calua5% G.R. No.171277% ,eb$ua$+ 18% 2//7% 816 SCR :4% 91.

82 $ticle 11: of the Ci&il Co'e p$o&i'esB

$t. 11:. n the coputation of tie necessa$+ fo$ p$esc$iption% the follo)in5 $ulesshall be obse$&e'B

-1 he p$esent possesso$ a+ coplete the pe$io' necessa$+ fo$ p$esc$iption b+tac=in5 his possession to that of his 5$anto$ o$ p$e'ecesso$ in inte$est.

8 SEC. 16. Resol&in5 'efense of o)ne$ship. (hen the 'efen'ant $aises the 'efense ofo)ne$ship in his plea'in5s an' the >uestion of possession cannot be $esol&e' )ithout'eci'in5 the issue of o)ne$ship% the issue of o)ne$ship shall be $esol&e' onl+ to'ete$ine the issue of possession. -ephasis ou$s





































84 PaDu+o &. Cou$t of ppeals% sup$a note :% at 81/.

88 See !e G$ano &. <acuba% sup$a note 4/% at 189% citin5 aba5at G$ill &. !MC3I$banP$ope$t+ !e&elope$% nc.% G.R. No. 18811/% Ma$ch 1% 2//8% 484 SCR 68% 67/@ an'PaDu+o &. C% sup$a note :.





ejectment jurisprudence

Documents