GR 184225; (September, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184225; September 4, 2009
SPOUSES ROGELIO F. LOPEZ AND TEOTIMA G. LOPEZ, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES SAMUEL R. ESPINOSA AND ANGELITA S. ESPINOSA, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, the Espinosa spouses, owned a house constructed in 1983 on a portion of land in Surigao City. Petitioners, the Lopez spouses, acquired title to the entire parcel of land, including the portion occupied by respondents’ house, in 1996. A history of conflict existed, including a prior dismissed recovery of possession case filed by petitioners in 1994 and a barangay complaint for malicious mischief in 1997. On May 10, 2002, during respondents’ absence, petitioners demolished the respondents’ house and enclosed the lot with a concrete fence. Respondents filed a complaint for Forcible Entry with Damages.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled for respondents, finding forcible entry and ordering petitioners to restore possession and pay damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, dismissing the case on grounds of respondents’ alleged abandonment of the property. The Court of Appeals reinstated the MTCC decision, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents did not abandon their house and that petitioners are liable for forcible entry.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core issue in forcible entry is prior physical possession and the deprivation thereof through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The Court upheld the factual findings of the MTCC and the CA that respondents enjoyed priority of possession since 1983. The act of petitioners in demolishing the house and fencing the lot in respondents’ absence constituted “strategy,” a mode of forcible entry.
The defense of abandonment was correctly rejected. Abandonment requires a clear, absolute, and irrevocable intent to renounce a right. Respondents’ temporary relocation for work and the disconnection of utilities did not constitute abandonment. Their acts of paying realty taxes for the house, periodically visiting the property, and immediately seeking legal redress upon discovery of the demolition demonstrated a continued claim of possession. The award of damages was also affirmed, as the issue of its propriety was raised too late, being raised for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals.