Prior physical possession matters
In 2001, Roi and Wil entered into a conditional deed of sale over a 3,000-sqm land covered by a tax declaration.
Upon execution of the conditional deed of sale, Roi immediately took actual possession and occupation of the subject property in the concept of an owner.
In 2004, the adjoining neighbors of Roi warned him that Wil sold the subject property to other persons. Roi then put up perimeter fences and a shanty on the subject land to protect his rights and to establish his possession over it. He also demanded from Wil a deed of absolute sale in his favor but to no avail.
In 2006, Wil filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry against Roi which was dismissed for failure of Wil to prosecute the case. Since the dismissal of that case, Roi was in peaceful possession of the subject property for a period of eight years reckoned from 2001 until 2009, before he filed the forcible entry case against Wil and Cari.
In the complaint, Roi alleged that on November 9, 2009, he learned from his caretaker that Wil, without his permission and in utter disregard of his peaceful possession and ownership, entered the subject property through force, intimidation, strategy, and stealth together with a group of unknown persons, who turned to be employees of Cari, to take measurements and to make excavations for the construction of a permanent structure.
Because he was in Manila at the time the incident was reported to him, he was able to verify the illegal entry of Wil on the subject property only on November 18, 2009.
So, on November 19, 2009, Roi filed an action for forcible entry with damages originally against Wil. However, during the course of the hearing, Roi learned that Wil sold to Cari a 1,553-sqm portion of the subject property; that Cari acquired a new tax declaration in her name over the subject land.
Cari claimed that she bought the property from Wil in good faith. At the time of the sale, Roi or any of his representatives were not seen on the subject property. Also, the tax declaration of Wil had no annotations or any encumbrances.
Q: What is an action for forcible entry?
A: An action for forcible entry is when one is deprived of physical possession of land by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth.
Thus, the three elements that must be alleged and proved for the forcible entry case to prosper are the following: (a) that they have prior physical possession of the property; (b) that they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (c) that the action was filed within one (1) year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property.
However, as to the third element, when the entry is through stealth, the one year period is counted from the time the plaintiff or legal possessor learned of the deprivation of the physical possession of the property.
Q: What is the primary issue in forcible entry cases?
A: In forcible entry cases, possession means nothing more than physical, actual or material possession or possession de facto, and not the one coming out or arising from ownership or possession de jure.
The issue is only prior physical possession, and not title.
Q: Is proof of prior physical possession necessary in forcible entry cases?
A: Yes, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.
Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him. To repeat, the only issue that the court has to settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession.
Further, it is not required that there be an appreciable length of time of prior physical possession. In other words, even when prior physical possession is short, for as long as the prior physical possession is established, then recovery of possession under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court may be granted.
In determining whether a person is entitled to recover possession of the property which he is claiming on the basis of prior physical possession, the first resolve the issue of whether person was able to establish the identity of the subject property, i.e., whether the property which he claims in the is the same as the property occupied by the adverse party.
Q: Who is entitled to the physical possession of the subject property?
A: Roi because (a) he was able to prove the identity of property to which he sought to regain physical possession; (b) he was able to alleged and prove his prior physical possession over the subject property occupied by Cari.
Moreover, Roi’s claim of prior physical possession over the subject property was duly strengthened by Wil’s forcible entry case filed against him which was, however, dismissed for failure of defendant Willy to prosecute. (Source: David vs. Butay, G.R. No. 220996. April 26, 2022 [Inting, J., First Division])
The author is Dean of Lyceum of the Philippines University; chair of the Philippine Association of Law Schools; and founder of Mawis Law Office
