Gorgonio P. Palajos vs. Jose Manolo E. Abad,

G.R. No. 205832, March 7, 2022

Facts:

1. Manolo and his siblings, namely, Ma. Jasmin E. Abad and Jose Roman E. Abad, filed a complaint for forcible entry against Palajos, along with other individuals of Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No. 06-35654.

2. While Civil Case No. 06-35654 was pending, plaintiffs filed a motion to render judgment claiming that defendants therein either filed their answer beyond the reglementary period or did not file any answer at all. The MeTC granted plaintiffs' motion, except against Palajos whose answer was admitted.

3. Plaintiffs claimed that they are the registered owners of three adjacent and contiguous parcels of land which they acquired from their parents in 1999. Sometime in September or October 2001, they took actual possession of the subject property and constructed a concrete perimeter fence around it.

4. Plaintiffs claimed that on the third week of January 2006, they discovered that defendants, by means of force upon things, strategy and stealth and without their knowledge and consent, destroyed portions of the perimeter fence, entered the subject property and constructed their houses thereon, depriving plaintiffs of their possession. Upon discovery, plaintiffs made demands for defendants to vacate but the latter failed and refused to remove their houses and structures.

Issues:

· Whether or not issue of ownership can be determined in a forcible entry case

· Whether or not Manolo proved his prior physical possession of the subject property to entitle him to recover in an ejectment suit of forcible entry

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

Ruling:

FIRST ISSUE

Yes. As a rule, "possession" in forcible entry cases refers to prior physical possession or possession de facto, not possession de Jure or that arising from ownership. Title is not an issue. As an exception, Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that the issue of ownership shall be resolved in deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is intertwined with the issue of ownership. Thus, based on the foregoing, the issue of ownership of the property in forcible entry cases may be provisionally determined - to determine the issue of possession and only if the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership.

SECOND ISSUE

Yes. The three elements that must be alleged and proved for a forcible entry suit to prosper are the following:

1. plaintiff had prior physical possession of the property before the defendant encroached on the property;

2. plaintiff was deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth by defendant; and

3. that the action was filed within one (1) year from the time the plaintiff learned of his deprivation of the physical possession of the property, except that when the entry is through stealth, the one (1)-year period is counted from the time the plaintiff-owner or legal possessor learned of the deprivation of the physical possession of the property.

The Supreme Court consistently held that "possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.

This Court finds that it is necessary to provisionally determine ownership of the subject property for purposes of determining prior possession. In the instant case, both the MeTC and the CA correctly found that Manolo and his siblings were able to establish that they are the registered owners of the subject property which they acquired from their parents in 1999. Although they did not immediately put the same to active use, but viewed in the light of the foregoing juridical acts, Manolo had been occupying the land since 1999. On the other hand, Palajos claims that his right to enter Lot No. 5 of the subject property was by virtue of a May 4, 1988 Deed of Absolute Sale which B.C. Regalado & Co. executed in his favor. However, the Court find that Palajos failed to substantially prove the same.

With regard to the issue of prior physical possession, sometime in September or October 2001, Manolo and his siblings took actual possession of the subject property and constructed a concrete perimeter fence around it. On the other hand, Palajos' evidence of alleged prior possession- such as payment of real property taxes on February 17, 2005 and January 21, 2006, or proofs of billing of his Bayantel telephone which he had installed in his residence in the year 2004, or that he was able to procure a COMELEC registration application of his son on October 24, 2003 31 - are incidents that occurred after Manolo took possession of the subject property. Thus, this Court finds that Manolo had prior physical possession of the subject property.

Anent the claim of prescriptive period, the Court find that the same was filed within one year from the time Manolo and his sibling discovered the clandestine entry of the defendants on the third week of January while the complaint was filed on February 23, 2006. Entry in the premises of the subject property without the consent and knowledge of the registered owner, clearly falls under stealth, which is defined as "any secret, sly or clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into, or to remain within [the] residence of another without permission.