Antazo v. Doblada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioners, alleging they had been in open and peaceful possession of a parcel of land (Assessor’s Lot Nos. 112 and 113) in Binangonan, Rizal. Petitioners, claiming to have bought the property, sent a letter asserting ownership and possession, and alleging respondents forcibly took possession. Respondents countered that petitioners evicted them in May 2003, destroyed their bamboo fence, and constructed a concrete perimeter fence. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the complaint, finding respondents failed to prove prior possession and that ownership and possession were transferred to petitioners upon purchase. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), upon reconsideration, reversed the MTC, reinstated the complaint, found respondents had prior possession, ordered petitioners to vacate, and awarded damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, deleting the award for reasonable compensation but upholding the order to vacate. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, arguing the RTC erred in reversing its earlier decision and ordering their ejectment, and that they had priority in possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's reversal of its earlier decision and ordering the ejectment of petitioners. Whether petitioners have priority in possession of the subject property.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course. The Court of Appeals Decision dated February 28, 2007 and Resolution dated July 18, 2007 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's reversal of its earlier decision and ordering the ejectment of petitioners: The Court held that the petition is without merit because it misapprehended the nature of a forcible entry case. Petitioners were referring to "possession" flowing from ownership, whereas in ejectment cases, possession means actual physical possession, not legal possession. Prior physical possession is the primary consideration in forcible entry. A party with prior possession can recover possession even against the owner and remains on the property until lawfully ejected. The Court found that respondents were in prior possession and petitioners deprived them of it by force, as evidenced by petitioners' letter demanding restoration of possession and their failure to specifically deny the allegation of constructing a concrete fence, which implies force. On the issue of whether petitioners have priority in possession of the subject property: The Court found that respondents were in prior possession of the property. The letter from petitioners' counsel, demanding the removal of the bamboo fence and restoration of possession, indicated that petitioners were not yet in possession and were demanding it. Furthermore, petitioners' failure to specifically deny the allegation that they constructed a concrete fence on the property constitutes a judicial admission, and unlawfully entering and erecting a structure implies the use of force. The Court reiterated that even usurpers are entitled to remain on the land until lawfully ejected, and that parties cannot take the law into their own hands to recover possession.
Main Doctrine
In forcible entry cases, prior physical possession is the primary consideration, and a party who can prove such prior possession can recover possession even against the owner, remaining on the property until lawfully ejected.