Uninvited entry
Mercury filed a complaint for forcible entry against the heirs of Iggy.
She alleged that sometime in 1969, Republic Act No. 5941 was passed granting the national government the authority to sell cottages in Baguio City, including the lot on which subject property is located. After due proceedings, Mercury was awarded Lot No. 50 since she had been occupying the said lot and had built a bodega therein since 1981.
In 1990, Mercury rebuilt the bodega into a residential house. In 1993, Mercury declared her residential house/building for tax purposes. Lot No. 50 was declared for tax purposes as early as 1990.
According to her, she had been in possession of Lot No. 50 since 1981, while awaiting for the issuance of the title under Republic Act No. 1361.
In 2016, the heirs of Iggy threatened her children who were occupying the property of a potential demolition of their home or a legal action if they did not vacate the property.
Later that year, while Mercury’s children were on vacation, the heirs of Iggy enclosed the property which blocked the children’s access. They also put up a “No Trespassing” sign, nailed on the main door, and stationed dogs in the property. Mercury then alleged that they have not been able to return to the property.
In their answer, while the heirs of Iggy admitted that they notified Mercury about the demolition of her illegal structure, they explained that it was the local government unit that recommended its demolition. They also admitted to placing the “No Trespassing” sign to protect the property from Mercury, who is a trespasser on Lot No. 49, which was titled in favor of the heirs of Iggy.
The heirs of Iggy mentioned that the lot occupied and applied for by Mercury is Lot No. 50, while theirs is Lot No. 49. They claimed that Mercury never occupied Lot No. 49 since she and her family stayed in Lot No. 50.
However, Mercury surreptitiously erected a shanty on the property of the heirs of Iggy and had it rented by tenants without any building permit. This was why the LGU recommended its demolition as early as 1998.
During the preliminary conference, the parties agreed on the following stipulations: (1) the subject property was previously owned by the national government and covered by Republic Act No. 1361; (2) the lot applied for by Mercury is Lot No. 50; (3) Lot No. 49 is already titled in the name of Iggy’s heirs; and (4) the property sought to be recovered by Mercury is inside the titled property of the heirs of Iggy as far as the metes and bounds as described in the title are concerned.
Q: What are the elements that must be alleged and proved for a complaint for forcible entry to be granted?
A: The following elements must be alleged and proved: (1) that the plaintiff had prior physical possession of the property; (2) that the plaintiff was deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (3) that the action was filed within one year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property.
Q: What is the primordial issue that must be proved in actions for forcible entry?
A: In actions for forcible entry, the only issue is the prior material possession (possession de facto) of real property and not ownership (possession de jure). Thus, courts should base their decision on who had a prior physical possession of the property under litigation.
Moreover, it must be stressed that Mercury, though not the registered owner of Lot No. 49, cannot be ousted by force from the subject property which encroaches upon Lot No. 49.
It is must be stressed that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror, not even by the owners.
Assuming arguendo that that the defendant is the real owner of the subject property, he/she had no right to take the law into their own hands and summarily or forcibly eject petitioner’s tenants from the subject property. Their employment of illegal means to eject the complainant by force in entering the subject property by destroying the locks using [a] bolt cutter, replacing the locks, and prohibiting the tenants to enter therein made them liable for forcible entry since prior possession was established by complainant.
Verily, even if a complainant was a mere usurper of the land owned by defendant, he/she is entitled to remain on it until they are lawfully ejected therefrom. Under appropriate circumstances, respondents may file, other than an ejectment suit, an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria.
Q: Was Mercury able to prove that she had a prior physical possession over the subject property?
A: Yes. It is undisputed that Mercury occupied and built a residential house on Lot No. 50 as early as 1991. In 1993, she declared her residential house/building for tax purposes.
Meanwhile, Lot No. 49 was awarded to Iggy through a Special Patent pursuant to Republic Act No. 1361 on July 27, 2004. Notably, the parties stipulated that the property sought to be recovered by Mercury encroaches upon Lot No. 49, which is titled in the name of Iggy.
Such fact is also supported by the sketch plan of land prepared by a geodetic engineer. Thus, while possession can be acquired through juridical acts, i.e., the execution and registration of the deed of absolute sale in favor of Iggy, Mercury’s prior physical possession since 1991 has been well-established and even admitted by Iggy’s heirs.
While Mercury did not have prior physical possession over the entire Lot No. 49, the subject property whose possession Mercury seeks to recover is inside Lot No. 49. Therefore, as between Mercury and the heirs of Iggy, Mercury sufficiently proved that she had a prior physical possession of the subject property. (Source: Magsi vs. Heirs of Lopez, Jr., G.R. No. 262034, May 22, 2024, [J. Hernando, First Division])
The author is Dean, College of Law at the Lyceum of the Philippines University; member, Civil Law Department, of the Philippine Judicial Academy
