Photo from Pexels | Evan Velez Saxer
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In forcible entry cases, a person is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto.
The only issue in forcible entry cases is whether the claimant has proved, by preponderance of evidence, prior physical possession of contested property. The question of ownership may only be provisionally resolved if it is raised by the parties and its resolution is essential to determine which party has the better right of possession.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in forcible entry cases, the key issue is who had prior physical possession of the property– not ownership.
The case stemmed from a complaint for forcible entry filed by Rico, who claimed he was in possession of the property by virtue of his free patent application for Lot 1957 with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). He claimed that on October 11, 2005, the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.
Both the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Rico, confirming his prior possession. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, citing a previous unlawful detainer case where Rico had been ordered to vacate the property in favor of its titled owner.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that forcible entry cases are about physical possession, not legal ownership.
In forcible entry cases, persons are deprived of physical possession of land by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. To prove forcible entry, a complainant must show that (a) they have prior physical possession of the property; (b) they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and (c) the action was filed within one year from the time they learned that they lost physical possession of the property.
The only issue in forcible entry cases is whether the claimant has proved prior physical possession of the contested property.
Since Rico has established his prior possession, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor and ordered the respondents to vacate the property. The Supreme Court stressed that issues of ownership and title are irrelevant in forcible entry cases. However, the question of ownership may be temporarily addressed if it is raised by the parties and is necessary to determine who has the better right of possession.
Related Articles:
- What are the Rights and Obligations of the Lessor and Lessee in a Contract of Lease?
- INSTANCES WHEN A LESSEE MAY BE EJECTED UNDER THE RENT CONTROL ACT
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.