The aggressive usurper

A person filing an action for forcible entry must prove prior physical possession, that his possession antedates that of the person he is suing. This is illustrated in this case of Randy and his half siblings Robert and Monette.

Way back in 1961 Randy purchased a parcel of land with an area of 5,270 square meters and acquired Transfer Certificate of Title thereto in his name. Thereafter, in 1968 Randy and his wife Myrna engaged in lumber and copra business, put up a huge lumber shed and a lumber mill on their property. They also used a portion of the property as storage for copra.

In 1975, the couple ceased their business operations, padlocked the gates of the property leaving it to the care of Nestor. When Nestor died in 1991 Ato took over as caretaker.

Randy and Myrna were surprised when Robert and Monette sued them for forcible entry of their own property on December 13,1993. Upon inquiry from their caretaker, they learned that some two weeks earlier or on November 28, 1993, Robert and Monette and their caretaker Ernie, entered the property by breaking the padlock and occupied the second floor of the warehouse without the consent of their caretaker Ato who was then outside the premises.

But in their complaint, Robert and Monette alleged that they have been in possession of the premises since 1975 using it for their combined lumber and copra business attaching thereto Lumber Certificate of Registration containing a different address, the expired PCA Copra Business Registration, and the Mayor’s unnumbered copra dealer’s permit dated December 31,1976. They also attached a purported Tax Declaration over the property in the name Robert which was not a certified copy of the original. According to them, on November 28,1993, the spouses Randy and Myrna detained their caretaker Ernie and his daughter inside the compound and destroyed the padlocks of the gates. Then they forcibly opened Monette’s quarters at the second floor and occupied it. Robert and Monette thus asked for indemnification of all the properties inside the compound amounting to P350,000 as well as P100,000 unrealized income.

For their part Randy and Myrna vehemently denied these allegations and insisted that the property was theirs as evidenced by the title. And they had been in prior possession thereof personally and through their caretakers upon closure of their business. They also sued Monette for trespassing on their property.

Will the action of Robert and Monette for forcible entry prosper?

No.

In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property and that he was deprived thereof by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. He cannot succeed where it appears that, as between himself and the defendant, the latter had a possession antedating his own.

In this case, the evidence clearly shows that Randy and Myrna are the true owners and therefore lawful possessors of the land. Randy acquired the property way back in 1961, and title was issued in his name. He and his wife Myrna had occupied it for their lumber and copra business since 1968 and upon the closure of their business they designated Nestor and Ato as caretakers of the lot. Upon the other hand Robert and Monette’s prior possession of the premises is anchored on spurious documents. The lumber certificate does not specifically refer to the disputed property. It was issued to them at a different address. The tax declaration is not a certified copy of the original. The Copra Registration and Mayor’s Permit are expired documents. They didn’t even present their caretaker Ernie to prove prior physical possession.

Furthermore, it turned out that Monette was later convicted by the MTC for trespassing thus confirming the falsity of Robert and Monette’s claim of prior physical possession.

Where a dispute over possession arises between two persons, the person first having actual possession is the one who is entitled to maintain the action granted by law; otherwise a mere usurper without any right whatsoever might enter upon the property of another, and by allowing himself to be ordered off, could acquire the right to maintain the action for forcible entry, however momentary his intrusion might have been (Spouses Gaza vs. Lim G.R. 126863, January 16, 2003)

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]