Perez v. Falcatan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, owners of a 22.4162-hectare parcel of land identified as Lot No. H-210949, sued petitioner for forcible entry and damages. They alleged that in January 1990, petitioner surreptitiously entered and took possession of a portion of their land, cutting down trees and constructing structures. Despite a demand to vacate, petitioner refused, prompting the respondents to file suit. Petitioner admitted taking possession but claimed it was under an Industrial Tree Plantation Lease Agreement with the DENR, asserting the land was part of the leased forest zone and denying cutting trees. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioner to vacate, demolish improvements, pay for trees cut, and pay rental fees and attorney's fees. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), raising new claims of prescription, failure to implead the DENR, and lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The RTC reversed the MTCC decision, dismissing the complaint, finding no proof of prior possession, and ruling the complaint time-barred. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially dismissed their petition due to a defect in the certificate of non-forum shopping. After a motion for reconsideration, the CA admitted the petition, reversed the RTC, and reinstated the MTCC decision. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the CA erred in admitting the respondents' corrected petition for review after the reglementary period had lapsed, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. Petitioner also contends that the CA disregarded the RTC's findings regarding the lack of evidence of prior possession by the respondents and ignored the Industrial Lease Plantation Agreement, which he claims justified his lawful entry and possession. The core of his argument is that his possession was legal and sanctioned by the government, negating the element of strategy or stealth required for a forcible entry case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting respondents’ petition. Whether respondents had prior possession of the Lot. Whether petitioner entered and took possession of the Lot illegally.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated 28 July 1999 is affirmed with the modification that petitioner Jesus Perez is ordered to pay respondents a fair rental value for his use and occupation of 11.5 hectares of Lot No. H-210949 at a monthly rate of ₱500 per hectare from 7 March 1990 until he vacates the Lot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals admitting respondents’ petition: The Court held that petitioner is estopped from questioning the CA's admission of the corrected petition because he did not seek reconsideration of the CA's resolution admitting it. Instead, he sought an extension to file his comment. Furthermore, the timely filing of respondents' motion for reconsideration of the initial denial prevented the RTC decision from becoming final, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. The Court also reiterated its liberal application of the rule on the certificate of non-forum shopping, allowing compliance after filing the petition when there is a need for review. On the issue of whether respondents had prior possession of the Lot: The Court affirmed the findings of the MTCC and CA that respondents had prior possession. The Lot was registered in respondents' names under TCT No. T-70,377, tracing their title to Marcelino Patoc's homestead patent from 1940. Respondents and their predecessor-in-interest had occupied and exercised ownership rights for over 50 years before petitioner's entry. The Court clarified that not residing on the Lot does not negate possession, as the property was used for agricultural purposes. On the issue of whether petitioner entered and took possession of the Lot illegally: The Court found that petitioner deprived respondents of possession by strategy, specifically by using the Industrial Tree Plantation Lease Agreement as a legal cover. Petitioner had negotiated to buy the Lot from respondents but was refused. He then obtained leasehold rights over adjacent forest land and used the Lease Agreement to occupy a portion of respondents' private land, which was explicitly excluded from the Lease Agreement's coverage. The Court emphasized that the DENR survey and the Lease Agreement could not prevail over respondents' TCT No. T-70,377 and the MTCC-appointed surveyor's confirmation of boundaries. Petitioner's actions constituted machination or artifice, satisfying the element of deprivation by strategy under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
In forcible entry cases, the sole issue is who had prior possession de facto of the disputed property. Entry by machination or artifice, such as using a lease agreement as legal cover for occupying private land excluded from its coverage, constitutes deprivation of possession by strategy.