Possession, not ownership, is primary in forcible entry cases 鈥� SC
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday said individuals must first prove their possession of a property rather than ownership, in forcible entry cases.
This is based on a 14-page decision written by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, where the SC First Division ordered a certain Ernie “Toto” Castillo and other respondents to vacate a parcel of land in Davao City after they had forcibly entered the property.
It stemmed from a complaint filed by a certain Edgar Rico who claimed he was in possession of the property by virtue of his free patent application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, after the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures on October 11, 2005.
READ:
Both the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Rico, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, citing a previous unlawful detainer case where Rico had been ordered to vacate the property in favor of its titled owner, Milagros Villa-Abrille.
The SC, however, reversed the CA’s ruling and reinstated the MTCC and RTC decisions.
Article continues after this advertisementAccording to the SC, in forcible entry cases, persons are deprived of physical possession of land by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
Article continues after this advertisementTo prove forcible entry, a complainant must show that they have prior physical possession of the property; they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and the action was filed within one year from the time they learned that they lost physical possession of the property.
“The only issue in forcible entry cases is whether the claimant has proved prior physical possession of the contested property,” the SC information office said.
“Issues of ownership and title are irrelevant in forcible entry cases. However, the question of ownership may be temporarily addressed if it is raised by the parties and is necessary to determine who has the better right of possession,” it added
With this, the SC ruled in Rico’s favor and ordered the respondents to vacate the property.
