Masallo v. Cesar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Eulogio Masallo filed an action of desahucio (eviction) against defendant Maria Cesar, averring ownership and possession of a tract of land. Plaintiff alleged that on June 12, 1915, defendant by force and intimidation deprived him of possession, withholding it to his damage. Defendant denied the eviction, asserting ownership and uninterrupted possession for over twenty years. Procedural History: The justice of the peace court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The case was appealed to the Court of First Instance, which also ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff, who acquired a deed to the land after the defendant had been in prior possession, can succeed in an action of forcible entry and detainer. Whether the plaintiff proved prior possession in himself sufficient to sustain an action of forcible entry and detainer.
Ruling
The decision of the trial court is reversed, and the action is dismissed. Plaintiff is to pay the costs of both instances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the plaintiff can succeed in an action of forcible entry and detainer despite the defendant's prior possession: The Court held that the plaintiff cannot succeed. The action of forcible entry and detainer, under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requires the plaintiff to prove a prior possession in himself. This means that as between the contending parties, the right of action is conceded to the party whose actual and peaceful possession antedates that of the other. In this case, the defendant Maria Cesar was shown to have had prior peaceful possession of the disputed parcel of ground for an indefinite period. Therefore, when the plaintiff entered upon the premises with his laborers, acting on a deed from a third party, it was the plaintiff who was guilty of the wrongful seizure of the property. The defendant had a perfect right to maintain an action of unlawful detainer against the plaintiff to regain possession. On the issue of whether the plaintiff proved prior possession in himself: The Court found that the plaintiff did not prove prior possession. The evidence showed conclusively that until the plaintiff went upon the land to plow it, acting on the strength of his deed from Matea Crispino, the plaintiff had never been in possession of this property. The deed from Matea Crispino did not constitute a delivery of possession because Matea Crispino herself admitted she did not have possession of the land when she executed the deed. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff can only succeed upon proof of prior possession in himself or someone to whose rights he has succeeded. The mere suggestion that a usurper could acquire the right to maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer by allowing himself to be ordered off, however momentary his intrusion, was deemed a refutation on its face, as the law discourages continued wrangling over possession and aims to make the right of possession secure.
Main Doctrine
In an action for forcible entry and detainer, the plaintiff must prove prior possession in himself. Where the defendant has a possession antedating the plaintiff's own, the plaintiff cannot succeed, as the remedy is intended to be used against the usurper and not against the person wronged.