Lagazo v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents filed a complaint for forcible entry, alleging they acquired ownership of a parcel of land by purchase and had been in possession since 1990. They claimed that on January 6, 2001, petitioner unlawfully entered the property. Petitioner countered, asserting that he and his co-heirs were the lawful owners, heirs of the registered owner, and that the agreement with respondents' predecessor was a mortgage, not a sale. Petitioner maintained that he and his co-heirs had always been in possession and attempted to redeem the property. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the forcible entry complaint, ordered the respondents to surrender the title, and directed the heirs of Alfredo Lagazo to execute a deed of conveyance for a portion of the property. Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, finding that respondents failed to prove prior physical possession. Subsequently, respondents filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, ordering the return of physical possession to the respondents and awarding attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising issues regarding the trial court's findings on implied admission of respondents' possession and petitioner's priority of possession. Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in not giving credence to his evidence of possession and in finding that respondents had a better right of possession. The core of the petition challenges the CA's reversal of the RTC's findings and its conclusion that respondents had prior physical possession of the disputed land.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding that there was implied admission on the part of the petitioner that respondents had been in actual physical possession of the lot in controversy since 1979. Whether the trial court gravely erred in not giving credence to the evidence adduced by petitioner substantiating his priority in possession over the lot in controversy. Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding that the respondents have better right of possession over the lot in controversy.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 28, 2005 and December 20, 2005, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 80709 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of implied admission and prior physical possession: The Court reiterated that prior physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases. The sole issue in ejectment suits is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises, or possession de facto, and not title to the property. A party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner. The Court found that the evidence, particularly the testimonies of petitioner Nelson Lagazo and his sister Marina Niñalga, proved that respondents were indeed in prior physical possession of the subject property. Petitioner himself admitted that he only entered the land on January 6, 2001, and prior to that date, he never personally possessed or cultivated the land because, according to his parents, it was mortgaged. His sister testified that they left the property in 1979 out of fear and that Arsenio Baac cultivated the land thereafter. The testimony of Brgy. Capt. Artemio Fontanilla also corroborated that Arsenio Baac had been cultivating and occupying the property for the longest time. Therefore, the Court concluded that it was only on January 6, 2001, that petitioner entered the land, disturbing the respondents' peaceful possession thereof. The Court also found that petitioner failed to establish his physical possession over the disputed land prior to January 6, 2001. His own testimony and that of his sister's admissions directly contradicted his claim of prior possession. On the issue of credence to evidence of petitioner's priority in possession: The evidence presented by petitioner primarily focused on establishing ownership and the nature of the agreement as a mortgage, which are issues not determinative in a forcible entry case. The Court emphasized that in ejectment cases, evidence of ownership is only admissible for the purpose of determining the issue of possession, not as the primary basis for the ruling. The admissions made by the petitioner and his sister were crucial in establishing that the respondents, through Arsenio Baac and subsequently themselves, had maintained possession of the land for a considerable period before petitioner's entry. On the issue of respondents' better right of possession: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that physical possession should be returned to the respondents. The determination of who had prior physical possession was the decisive factor. Based on the evidence presented, the respondents, through their predecessor Arsenio Baac, had established prior possession. Petitioner's claim of ownership, while potentially valid in a separate action for recovery of ownership, did not grant him the right to dispossess the party who had prior physical possession in a forcible entry case. The CA's order to return physical possession to the petitioners was therefore upheld, without prejudice to petitioner's right to pursue other legal remedies concerning ownership.
Main Doctrine
In forcible entry cases, the sole issue is who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, and prior physical possession is an indispensable element. Title to the property is not involved, and a party with prior possession can recover possession even against the owner.