G.R. No. 103453 September 21, 1999
LUIS CEREMONIA, substituted by QUIRINO CEREMONIA, ET. AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO CELESTRA as substituted by ASUNCION CELESTRA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luis Ceremonia filed a verified complaint for Forcible Entry against respondent Maximo Celestra before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binangonan, Rizal. Petitioner claimed to be a co-owner of a parcel of land in Bombong, Binangonan, Rizal, with an area of 10,930 square meters, which had been in his and his predecessors-in-interest’s possession since 1910. He alleged that in June 1979, respondent constructed a house on the property through stealth and strategy without his consent, depriving him of possession. Petitioner presented several tax declarations as proof of ownership and prior possession. Respondent averred that the land was owned in common by the heirs of Ceremonia Celestra, their predecessor-in-interest, who possessed it since time immemorial, and that the house was built with his co-heirs’ consent. The original parties died during the pendency of the case and were substituted by their heirs. After an ocular inspection, the MTC initially dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed and remanded the case. After further proceedings, the MTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the RTC reversed the MTC, dismissing the complaint for petitioner’s failure to prove prior possession. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s petition for review. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue is who between the contending parties is entitled to possession of the disputed property. Specifically, whether the petitioner proved his prior possession over the property where the respondent built his house, which is essential in a forcible entry case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that in forcible entry cases, the only issue is physical or material possession, independent of ownership, and the plaintiff must prove prior possession. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove by preponderant evidence his prior possession of the specific parcel where the respondent’s house was built. The Court noted material discrepancies in the technical description of the property based on petitioner’s own documents (tax declarations, deed of sale, and sketch plans), particularly regarding the western boundary. The Court of Appeals concluded, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the land in dispute was actually two parcels traversed by a road. The upper portion (about 2,000 sq.m.) was sufficiently shown to belong to the petitioner, but the lower portion (about 8,000 sq.m.), where the respondent’s house stood, was not. Petitioner’s evidence failed to clearly identify and prove prior possession of this lower parcel. The Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which were amply supported by the evidence. Consequently, the suit for forcible entry was correctly dismissed.