Prior physical possession

This is another case of forcible entry involving a parcel of land. When is there forcible entry? What are the elements to prove a forcible entry case? This is answered in this case of Rolly against Cristy.

The case involved a 3,000-square meter parcel covered by Assessment of Real Property No. 99-001-06218 located in Benguet province which Rolly acquired and immediately took actual possession of sometime in 2001 by virtue of a Deed of Conditional Sale executed by its owner Jimmy.

Three years later, the adjoining neighbors warned Rolly that its owner Jimmy sold the same property to other persons. So Rolly put up perimeter fences and a shanty over the subject land and demanded from Jimmy a Deed of Absolute Sale. But Jimmy instead filed a forcible entry case against Rolly, which was however dismissed. So Rolly remained in peaceful possession of the subject property.

Then eight years later, he filed a forcible entry case against Jimmy who entered the property through force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth as reported to him by his caretaker. In fact, during the course of the hearing, Jimmy sold to Cristy a portion of said land with an area of 1,553 square meters covered by ARP99-001-06695 which had no annotation and encumbrance. So the corresponding tax declaration number ARP 99-001-8183 was issued in Cristy’s favor. Thus, Rolly amended his complaint filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MCTC) to include Cristy as defendant.

Later on, the MCTC rendered a decision in favor of Rolly, declaring that he was able to show his prior physical possession over the subject property. This ruling was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). But upon Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), the RTC decision was set aside and the Amended Complaint filed by Rolly against Cristy was dismissed. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court said that the CA erred in dismissing the case. According to the SC, there is forcible entry when one is deprived of physical possession of land by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth. Thus, the following elements must be alleged and proven: (1) that plaintiff has prior physical possession of the property; (2) that plaintiff was deprived of possession either by force, threat, intimidation, strategy or stealth; (3) 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.

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 prior physical possession, he has the security of tenure that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.

In this case, the amended complaint sufficiently alleged Rolly’s prior physical possession over the property occupied by Cristy. This was duly strengthened by Jimmy’s forcible entry case filed against him which was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

So, the decision of the CA dismissing the forcible entry case was reversed and set aside. (David vs. Butay, G.R 220996, April 20, 2022)

*      *      *

Email: j[email protected]