G.R. No. 130316 ; January 24, 2007
ERNESTO V. YU and ELSIE O. YU, Petitioners, vs. BALTAZAR PACLEB, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Ernesto and Elsie Yu filed an action for forcible entry against respondent Baltazar Pacleb. They claimed that in September 1992, they purchased a lot in Dasmariñas, Cavite, from Ruperto Javier, who allegedly acquired it from a prior buyer who purchased it from respondent. The title, however, remained in the names of respondent and his wife. Petitioners asserted they were given possession, appointed respondent’s son Ramon as their trustee, and enjoyed open, public, and peaceful possession from September 1992 until September 1995.
Petitioners alleged that upon respondent’s return from the United States in May 1995, he forcibly entered the property, ousting them and their trustee. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, dismissing the complaint for forcible entry. The CA found that respondent, through his sons as caretakers, maintained prior physical possession, a finding petitioners now contest before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioners failed to establish prior physical possession of the subject property, a requisite for a valid forcible entry claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession and subsequent deprivation by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The Court, while generally bound by factual findings in a Rule 45 petition, reviewed the evidence due to conflicting findings between the lower courts and the CA.
The legal logic centers on the concept of possession, which requires occupancy and the intent to possess (animus possidendi). Petitioners failed to prove prior physical possession. Crucially, the decision in a related case for specific performance (Civil Case No. 741-93) against their vendor, Javier, contained a factual finding that petitioners were never placed in possession of the property. This contradicted their self-serving claim of a 1992 turn-over. Conversely, respondent established prior possession through tax declarations and receipts in his name for 1994 and 1995, which constitute persuasive evidence of possession with a claim of ownership. Furthermore, possession can be held through another; respondent, while abroad, maintained possession through his sons as caretakers. Since petitioners did not have prior physical possession superior to respondent’s, their action for forcible entry necessarily failed.