G.R. No. 12208 ; September 9, 1918
PEDRO SANTOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JULIAN SANTIAGO, guardian of the minors Gaspara and Santiago, surnamed Santiago, and MAXIMO ANGELES, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Prior to December 15, 1915, plaintiff Pedro Santos was in material possession of a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, planted with rice and nipa. Defendant Julian Santiago, wishing to convert the nipa portion into a fishery, sold the nipa trees to his co-defendant Maximo Angeles. On December 15, 1915, both defendants entered the land and proceeded to cut the nipa groves. Santos, upon learning of their presence, sent agents to stop them, but the defendants refused. When Santos personally went to the land, the defendants, who were already working with their bolos, approached him, causing him to withdraw out of fear. Julian Santiago thereafter remained in possession of the land. Santos filed an action for forcible entry and detainer in the justice of the peace court. The case was appealed to the Court of First Instance, which dismissed the complaint on the ground that the defendants’ entry was not proven to be by force or intimidation. Santos appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants, particularly Julian Santiago, employed “force” as contemplated under the forcible entry statute, thereby justifying an action for forcible entry and detainer.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. Applying the doctrine in Mediran vs. Villanueva, the Court held that “force” in forcible entry includes not only physical violence but also any act of exclusion by which a prior lawful possessor is deprived of possession. The mere act of entering the land without consent, planting oneself thereon, and excluding the prior possessor necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property. Julian Santiago’s insistence on cutting the trees and his refusal to return possession to Santos constituted possession by force. Therefore, an action for forcible entry and detainer was proper.

Regarding damages, as the action only involves possession and not ownership, Santos was entitled only to indemnity for the loss of fruits or profits from the land as a possessor, not for the value of the nipa trees themselves. The Court awarded Santos P600 per year as damages for the lost annual yield, from December 15, 1915, until restitution of the land.

As to defendant Maximo Angeles, the record showed he merely cut the nipa trees he purchased from Santiago without knowledge of any defect in Santiago’s right to sell. Thus, he incurred no liability.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment appealed from is reversed. Defendant Julian Santiago is ordered to restore the land to plaintiff Pedro Santos and to pay him P600 per year as damages from December 15, 1915, until restitution. The judgment absolving defendant Maximo Angeles is affirmed. No costs.