See - G.R.
No. 196741 (lawphil.net)
PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY (Now known as TOURISM
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENTERPRISE ZONE AUTHORITY), Petitioner, vs. MARCOSA A.
SABANDAL-HERZENSTIEL, PEDRO TAPALES, LUIS TAPALES, and ROMEO TAPALES,
Respondents. G.R. No. 196741, July 17, 2013.
“x x x.
The sole issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not
the respondents may be lawfully ejected from the subject property.
X x x.
The petition is meritorious.
In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove that
he was in prior possession of the disputed property and that the defendant
deprived him of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1,
Rule 70 of the Rules, namely: force, intimidation, threats, strategy, and
stealth.23
In this case, respondents failed to establish their prior and
continued possession of the subject property after its sale in favor of
petitioner in 1981. On the contrary, they even admitted in their answer to the
complaint that petitioner exercised dominion over the same by instituting
caretakers and leasing portions thereof to third persons.24 Suffice it to state
that possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his
feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession.25
Thus, finding petitioner’s assertion to be well-founded, the MCTC properly
adjudged petitioner to have prior possession over the subject property as
against Sabandal-Herzenstiel, who never claimed ownership or possession
thereof.26
Petitioner’s supposed failure to describe in detail the manner
of respondents’ entry into the subject property is inconsequential.
Jurisprudence states that proving the fact of unlawful entry and the exclusion
of the lawful possessor – as petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated – would
necessarily imply the use of force. As held in Estel v. Heirs of Recaredo P.
Diego, Sr.:28
x x x Unlawfully entering the subject property and excluding
therefrom the prior possessor would necessarily imply the use of force and this
is all that is necessary. In order to constitute force, the trespasser does not
have to institute a state of war. No other proof is necessary. In the instant
case, it is, thus, irrefutable that respondents sufficiently alleged that the
possession of the subject property was wrested from them through violence and
force.29
And in David v. Cordova:30
x x x The foundation of a possessory action is really the
forcible exclusion of the original possessor by a person who has entered
without right. The words "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth" include every situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully
enter upon real property and exclude another, who has had prior possession
therefrom. If a trespasser enters upon land in open daylight, under the very
eyes of the person already clothed with lawful possession, but without the
consent of the latter, and there plants himself and excludes such prior
possessor from the property, the action of forcibly entry and detainer can
unquestionably be maintained, even though no force is used by the trespasser
other than such as is necessarily implied from the mere acts of planting
himself on the ground and excluding the other party.31
Similarly, in Arbizo v. Santillan,32 it has been held that the
acts of unlawfully entering the disputed premises, erecting a structure
thereon, and excluding therefrom the prior possessor would necessarily imply
the use of force, as in this case.1âwphi1
In fine, the Court upholds the findings and conclusions of the
MCTC, adjudging petitioner to be the lawful possessor of the subject property,
square as they are with existing law and jurisprudence. Accordingly, the CA’s
ruling on the merits must perforce be reversed and set aside.
X x x.”
