THE Supreme Court has ruled that in forcible entry cases, who had prior physical possession of the property, not ownership, is the key issue.
In a 14-page decision promulgated on July 23, 2024 but only made public yesterday, the High Court’s First Division, through Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, ordered respondents Ernie “Toto” Castillo and several others 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 for forcible entry filed by Edgar Rico, who claimed he had the property by his free patent application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Rico further claimed that on October 11, 2005, the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.
Both the Municipal Trial Court in Cities and the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Rico, confirming his prior possession.
However, the respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the MTCC and RTC rulings, citing a previous unlawful detainer case where Rico had been ordered to vacate the property in favor of its titled owner, Milagros Villa-Abrille.
SC DISAGREES WITH CA
However, the High Court disagreed with the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that forcible entry cases are about physical possession, not legal ownership.
“The only issue in forcible entry cases is whether the claimant has proved, by preponderance of evidence, prior physical possession of the contested property,” the SC ruling said.
“The question of ownership may only be provisionally resolved if it is raised by the parties and its resolution is essential to determine which party has the better right of possession,” it added.
The Court held that to prove forcible entry, a complainant must show that they had prior physical possession of the property and they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The action should also be filed within one year from the time they learned that they lost physical possession of the property.
The SC stressed that since Rico had established his prior possession, the respondents had no right to stay in the property.
“Both the MTCC and RTC found that the above elements of forcible entry were present, and the CA agreed that Rico’s complaint made out a case for forcible entry, “the SC ruling said.
“In this regard, the MTCC, RTC and even the CA found that Rico had prior physical possession of the disputed property. 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,” it added, saying Rico’s possession of the lot was lawful.
Concurring with the decision were Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo and Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Rodil Zalameda and Ricardo Rosario.
