View full case

MARCELA M. DELA CRUZ v. ANTONIO Q. HERMANO

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute over a house and lot in Tagaytay City. Respondents Antonio and Remedios Hermano are the registered owners of the property. On June 13, 2002, Antonio sued the petitioner for ejectment and damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Antonio alleged that the petitioner had occupied and possessed the property without authority and consent. He also claimed that he had sent a demand letter for the petitioner to vacate and pay rental.

In her answer, the petitioner admitted the existence of the title in the respondents' name but contended that the true owner of the property was Don Enciso Benitez. She claimed that Benitez had purchased the property from Antonio and his wife and subsequently sold it to her. The petitioner argued that Antonio knew about the sale and her immediate occupation of the property. She further claimed that the property was uninhabited when she occupied it and that Benitez had provided her with the keys. The petitioner argued that Antonio should be estopped from claiming the property since he made her believe she had the right to occupy and possess it.

The MTCC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that there was no showing of forcible entry or unlawful detainer. The RTC affirmed the dismissal, finding that the case was actually an accion reivindicatoria. The CA, however, reversed the decision and considered the case as an ejectment complaint for forcible entry. It found that Antonio had adequately alleged and proved prior physical possession. The CA also ruled that the MTCC had erred in dismissing the case, as it still had jurisdiction over the ejectment suit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Complaint in question sufficiently alleged prior physical possession by the respondents.

  2. Whether the case was properly categorized as an action for forcible entry.

  3. Whether the case is an action for ejectment or for forcible entry.

  4. Whether the Complaint was timely filed.

  5. Whether the respondents proved their prior physical possession.

RULING:

  1. The Complaint's allegations were found to be sufficient in establishing the jurisdictional facts required in forcible entry cases. The Court agreed with the findings of the CA that the Complaint adequately averred prior physical possession by the respondents and their dispossession thereof by stealth. The Complaint sufficiently alleged that the entry of the petitioner was made without the knowledge and consent of the respondents, thus constituting possession by stealth.

  2. The CA correctly categorized the case as an action for forcible entry. While the Complaint was initially captioned as "ejectment," the CA found that the allegations in the Complaint showed that it was, in fact, an action for forcible entry. The CA considered the elements of forcible entry as stated in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and concluded that the Complaint sufficiently alleged that the respondents were deprived of possession by the petitioner through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

  3. The case is actually for forcible entry and is sufficient in form, contrary to the claims of the defendants.

  4. The Complaint was timely filed based on the one-year prescriptive period counted from the time the person who was deprived of possession demanded that the deforciant desist from dispossession.

  5. The respondents failed to prove their prior physical possession, as they only submitted documents establishing possession flowing from ownership, which is not the same as possession de facto in a forcible entry case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In actions for forcible entry, it must be alleged and proved that the complainant was deprived of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The complainant must also allege and prove prior physical possession of the property until they were deprived thereof.

  • It is not necessary for the complaint to explicitly state that the possession was unlawfully taken; a statement of facts showing that dispossession took place under those conditions is sufficient.

  • The one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry into the land, except when entry was made through stealth; if so, the one-year period would be counted from the time the plaintiff learned about it.

  • In a forcible entry case, a party who can prove prior possession can recover possession even against the owner.

  • Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proofs of possession.

  • To prove prior physical possession, the burden lies on the party making the claim, and must be established by a preponderance of evidence.