Illegal entry

The rule is that the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the case is determined by the allegations of the complaint. In ejectment cases, the complaint must state and sufficiently show on its face that complainant has prior physical possession of the property in litigation and that he was dispossessed thereof through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth of the defendant (Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court). This is explained in our case for today.

This is the case involving Mario married to Lourdes who have six children, Manolo, Fred, Jun, Andy, Lita and Charlie. Mario was employed by an air base company located in the Mountain Province which allowed him to occupy a 493-square meter parcel of land in a housing facility of the air base. Mario constructed a residential building for their family home in said parcel of land, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA).

After Mario and Lourdes died, the siblings agreed to execute a Deed of Adjudication of Real Property and Quitclaim whereby Fred, Jun, Andy and Charlie waived and relinquished their right and interest in said property in favor of Manolo and Lita. By virtue of said Deed, a Certificate of Lot Award was issued solely in the name of Manolo and Lita, who is an American citizen. Two days later, the subject parcel of land was registered under Manolo’s name as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 89527. Thereafter, Manolo took possession of the same and introduce improvements thereon, making it his residence whenever he goes back here from the USA.

Later on, however, he learned that Fred entered and occupied subject property without his permission. So he came back here and tried to settle with Fred. But instead of apologizing Fred threatened Manolo with bodily harm if he goes to his property. Thus Manolo was forced to file a complaint before Municipal Trial City Court (MTCC) for Forcible Entry and Damages to eject Fred from the place, averring that the subject property was adjudicated by the siblings to him and his sister Lita, then took possession of it and introduced improvements thereon.

For his part, Fred alleged in his Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses that the property is an ancestral and family home put up by their parents and he and his sibling became co-owners thereof upon their death; that the Deed of Adjudication and Quitclaim was merely for the purpose of facilitating the award and titling the property with the understanding that the same will remain to be the family and ancestral home to be enjoyed by all of them and their families. Fred further averred that Manolo never possessed the property exclusively as his own because it was their sister Lita who introduced said improvements.

In its decision the MTCC dismissed Manolo’s complaint because he failed to allege much less prove that he had prior physical possession of the property. It also found that the complaint does not have allegations that Manolo was dispossessed of the subject property by force, intimidation, threats, strategy or stealth. In fact, the MTCC said that the dispossession of the property, if at all, was not done by any of said means.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed said decision of the MTCC. It ruled that the complaint sufficiently alleged Manolo’s prior possession of the property and that he was dispossessed thereof by Fred through stealth. According to the RTC, Manolo’s allegation that “he took possession of the house and made improvements thereon, using the same as his residence when he comes back to the country after his siblings adjudicated it in his favor and in favor of Lita, is sufficient allegation of prior possession. The RTC also ruled that Manolo’s allegation that Fred entered and occupied the house without his knowledge and consent, taking advantage of his absence, is a sufficient allegation of stealth or strategy. This ruling was, however, reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the ruling of the MTCC. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court (SC) said that the CA erred. The SC said that under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, it is enough to allege and to establish the facts that complainant has prior physical possession of the property in litigation and that he was dispossessed thereof through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.

In this case, the SC ruled that said complaint sufficiently stated the essential elements of an action for forcible entry. Manolo took possession of the property and made improvements thereon and used the same as his residence every time he went to the said place. As a rule, “possession” in this case refers to nothing more than possession de facto, not possession de jure or that arising from ownership. It can be acquired not only by actual occupation but also by the fact that a thing is subject to one’s will or by proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. In this case, Manolo is the registered owner of the subject property as evidenced by a TCT. Thus, Manolo has sufficiently proven prior possession of subject property by juridical act of registration thereof in the Torrens system. Fred’s entry in the premises of said property without the consent and knowledge of Manolo, who was abroad, constitute the illegal act of “stealth” which means “any secret or clandestine act to gain entrance or remain within the property of another without being discovered” (Madayag vs. Madayag, G.R.217576, Jan. 20, 2020).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]