FACTS:

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeals (CA) made several findings regarding the petition for review that was filed. The CA determined that the timeliness of the filing is not a jurisdictional requirement and can be waived. Additionally, the CA looked at the evidence presented by respondent Lacaba to establish his lawful possession and ownership over the disputed properties. This evidence included tax declarations, certifications from the Barangay Captain and Municipal Assessor, and a joint affidavit from his counsels.

On the other hand, petitioner Joven de Grano failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his claim of ownership and possession over the properties. Due to this lack of evidence, the CA reversed the decisions of the lower courts. As a result, the CA ordered petitioner and all persons acting under his authority to vacate and cease and desist from occupying and exercising acts of possession and dominion over the disputed properties.

ISSUES:

RULING:

PRINCIPLES:

• Forcible entry cases require the plaintiff to prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property and that he was deprived of possession through force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth. (Undang v. Serdeña, G.R. No. 209622, February 18, 2015)

• The party who can prove prior physical possession can recover such possession even against the true owner. (Dancel v. Lacuarta, G.R. No. 192452, June 5, 2013)

• The determination of possession in forcible entry cases is confined to the issue of which party has prior possession de facto, without prejudice to the right of ownership being threshed out in a separate action. (Magbanua v. Uy, G.R. No. 207775, June 20, 2016)