G.R. No. 171442 ; June 17, 2008
Ading Quizon, Ben Zablan, Peter Simbulan and Silvestre Villanueva, petitioners, vs. Laniza D. Juan, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Laniza Juan filed an ejectment complaint before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) against petitioners, alleging she acquired a 10.2-hectare parcel of land via a 1996 Deed of Sale. She claimed that on August 9, 2000, petitioners, through force and intimidation, entered a portion of her property, destroyed her wooden fence, fruit-bearing trees, and rice plantation, and later enclosed about one hectare with an iron fence, depriving her of possession. Petitioners Quizon and Zablan countered that they were the lawful owners and possessors, and that it was Juan who unlawfully invaded the property.
During the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that petitioners Simbulan and Villanueva had no possession or interest in the subject property but were with Quizon and Zablan during the alleged encroachment. The MCTC dismissed the complaint, finding petitioners Quizon and Zablan had prior physical possession and that the area they occupied was outside the property Juan bought. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially affirmed but, upon reconsideration, reversed the MCTC. It construed the pre-trial stipulation as an admission of unlawful takeover and ordered petitioners to restore possession to Juan and pay damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s ruling that petitioners committed forcible entry, thereby depriving respondent of her prior physical possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. In an ejectment case, the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession and that they were deprived thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The sole issue is physical possession, independent of claims of ownership. The Court found that Juan established prior physical possession through her acts of constructing a fence and cultivating the land. The critical legal point was the effect of the pre-trial stipulation. Petitioners’ agreement that Simbulan and Villanueva were present with Quizon and Zablan during the “forcible entry” leading to Juan’s ouster constituted a judicial admission. This admission was binding and conclusive, dispensing with the need for Juan to further prove the element of force or stealth. Consequently, petitioners could not later deny the forcible character of their entry. The MCTC’s finding of prior possession by petitioners was overturned as it contradicted this judicial admission. The award of damages for destroyed improvements was also upheld as a natural consequence of the unlawful dispossession.