SC: Physical possession matters in forcible entry cases, not legal ownership
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
SC: Physical possession matters in forcible entry cases, not legal ownership
The Supreme Court building in Padre Faura, Manila. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/File
The Supreme Court building in Padre Faura, Manila. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/FileMANILA — The Supreme Court has reiterated that in forcible entry cases, the key issue is who had prior physical possession of the property and not ownership.
MANILA — The Supreme Court has reiterated that in forcible entry cases, the key issue is who had prior physical possession of the property and not ownership.
In a decision promulgated on July 23, 2024 by the First Division, the court ordered respondents led by Ernie Castillo to vacate a parcel of land in Barangay Matina, Davao City, after finding that they had forcibly entered the property.
In a decision promulgated on July 23, 2024 by the First Division, the court ordered respondents led by Ernie Castillo to vacate a parcel of land in Barangay Matina, Davao City, after finding that they had forcibly entered the property.
The case stemmed from a complaint of forcible entry filed by Edgar Rico who claimed the Matina property by virtue of his free patent application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The case stemmed from a complaint of forcible entry filed by Edgar Rico who claimed the Matina property by virtue of his free patent application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Rico claimed that in 2005, the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.
Rico claimed that in 2005, the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lower courts favored Rico but the Court of Appeals decided against him, 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 lower courts favored Rico but the Court of Appeals decided against him, 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 Supreme Court however reversed the CA ruling, emphasizing that forcible entry cases are about physical possession, not legal ownership.
The Supreme Court however reversed the CA ruling, emphasizing that forcible entry cases are about physical possession, not legal ownership.
“The possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto,” the SC said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez.
“The possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto,” the SC said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez.
The court added that in forcible entry cases, persons are deprived of physical possession of land by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
The court added that in forcible entry cases, persons are deprived of physical possession of land by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
To prove forcible entry, a complainant must show the following: 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.
To prove forcible entry, a complainant must show the following: 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.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court emphasized the fact that Rico had physical possession of the land, whether Villa-Abrille has the legal title or not.
The court emphasized the fact that Rico had physical possession of the land, whether Villa-Abrille has the legal title or not.
“The validity or invalidity of his title is not relevant to the resolution of this dispute, and the CA erred in basing its decision on Rico’s perceived lack of legal title,” the court said.
“The validity or invalidity of his title is not relevant to the resolution of this dispute, and the CA erred in basing its decision on Rico’s perceived lack of legal title,” the court said.
On the question of ownership, the SC said that it may be temporarily addressed if it is raised by the parties and is necessary to determine who has the better right of possession.
On the question of ownership, the SC said that it may be temporarily addressed if it is raised by the parties and is necessary to determine who has the better right of possession.
MORE STORIES:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
