Initially right but ultimately wrong

This is another case of an ejectment suit raising two issues on who are bound by the decision and who has the better right of possession over the land.

The case involved a 1,337.50 square meter property subject matter of a complaint for forcible entry filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Abundo by Lily, Dely, and Badong, the children of Magno who had been in possession and tilling it since 1950.

In their complaint, Lily, Dely and Badong who claimed ownership of the land as heirs of Magno, charged Abundo of constructing a house on the subject land in July 1984 through stealth and strategy.

The ejectment suit was eventually decided by the Court of Appeals in favor of Lily, Dely and Badong. When it attained finality, the lower court issued writs of execution and demolition as well as a notice to vacate the property. But when the sheriffs went to the subject land to implement the writs, they found Fely, Rod and Linda occupying the property.

To prevent the demolition, Fely, Rod and Linda filed a complaint for injunction against Lily, Dely and Badong before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). They alleged that only Abundo was ordered by the lower court to surrender possession of the land and they are not trespassers, squatters or Abundo’s relatives or successors-in interest or privies. So judgment cannot be issued against them as they were not made parties thereto, ejectment suits being actions in personam. Fely and Rod further disputed the ownership claim of Lily, Dely and Badong by presenting pieces of documents purportedly showing that the latter are not the true owners and that they have better title and right to possess the land since they started occupying and put up their houses in 1986 and 1988 respectively. Linda also claimed that she started occupying the property in 1988 by virtue of a waiver and quitclaim signed by Abundo’s wife.

The RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the summary demolition but subsequently dismissed the complaint and recognized Lily, Dely and Badong’s prior possession and claim of the land which started in 1950 with their father Magno. It considered Fely, Rod and Linda as occupants in bad faith. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the RTC and CA correct?

Yes. An ejectment suit is an action in personam where judgment is binding only upon the parties impleaded and given the opportunity to be heard except when they are shown to be (a) trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guests or other occupants of the premises with defendants’ permission; (c) transferees pendent elite; (d) sub-lessees; (e) co-lessees or (f) members of the family, relatives and other privies of the defendant. In such cases a hearing must be held to determine the character of their possession. In this case Fely, Rod and Linda had not been given their day in court to prove the character of their possession as falling within any of the exceptions above enumerated. Hence they cannot be bound by the decision in the ejectment case and have a right to be protected against the summary demolition of their houses by means of a writ of preliminary injunction.

But the injunction can not be made permanent. It is clear that apart from enjoining the execution of the decision in the ejectment case, Fely, Rod and Linda squarely raised the issue of who are entitled to the possession of the land, as a consequence of title over it. Both the RTC and the CA found that Lily, Dely and Badong have the better right to the possession of the land through their father Magno who began occupying it in 1950 whereas Fely and Rod admitted having occupied it only in 1986 and 1988 respectively.

The only question to be resolved in the ejectment proceedings is — who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party’s title to the property is questionable. Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of the property allowed.

Since Lily, Dely and Badong have proven prior possession in time, they have indeed a better right to the possession of the land. Hence Fely, Rod and Linda must relinquish such possession and remove their houses built on it (Floyd and Calixtro vs. Gonzales et. al. G.R. 169047, November 3, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]