G.R. No. 130841 ; February 26, 2008
Spouses Virginia G. Gonzaga and Alfredo Gonzaga, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Bienvenido Agan, and Rowena Agan, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the registered owners of a residential lot in Davao City, discovered in June 1995 that private respondents had constructed a shanty on the property. Petitioners, who did not reside on the lot, had begun construction of a house and demanded that respondents vacate. Upon respondents’ refusal, petitioners filed a complaint for forcible entry with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), alleging respondents entered by stealth. The MTCC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate and pay compensation.
Private respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTCC. The RTC held that petitioners failed to prove prior actual physical possession, a requisite for forcible entry. The RTC concluded the proper action was accion publiciana, not forcible entry. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ petition for review, affirming the RTC’s reasoning.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the RTC’s dismissal of the forcible entry case and in ruling that petitioners’ proper remedy was an accion publiciana.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Initially, the Court noted a procedural error: petitioners improperly availed of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal via Rule 45, as the Court of Appeals’ resolutions constituted a final disposition. On substantive grounds, the Court affirmed the lower courts. For an action for forcible entry to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove prior physical possession of the property and that they were deprived thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Mere ownership does not equate to prior physical possession for purposes of forcible entry. Petitioners, as non-resident owners, did not establish prior de facto possession. Their claim of possession based solely on ownership is a legal attribute distinct from the fact of actual possession required in ejectment cases.
Consequently, the proper action was accion publiciana, a plenary suit to recover possession based on a better right of possession, which does not require prior physical possession and is available when, as here, more than one year had elapsed from the alleged deprivation. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for review.