G.R. No. 155343 September 2, 2005
Benguet Corporation vs. Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc., represented by Greg Bernabe, Jr., Teofilo “Boy” Dicang and Greg Bernabe, Jr.

FACTS

Petitioner Benguet Corporation, owner of the Pilo mineral claim in Itogon, Benguet, discovered in September 1997 that respondents, representing Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc. (CCMI), had bulldozed and leveled grounds within its claim to construct a school. Despite demands to cease, respondents continued their activities. Benguet Corporation filed a complaint for forcible entry in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), which ruled in its favor, recognizing its prior possession since 1964 versus CCMI’s possession commencing only in 1994. The MTC ordered respondents to vacate and restore possession.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, finding it insufficiently alleged the means of dispossession. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition for procedural deficiencies, specifically the failure to attach the board resolution authorizing the affiant to file the complaint and certified copies of other pertinent pleadings.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for procedural lapses; and (2) Whether the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for forcible entry.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA and RTC resolutions. On the procedural issue, while the Court acknowledged that rules on verification and certification against forum-shopping are formal and may be liberally construed, it found no reversible error in the CA’s dismissal. The Court noted that the subsequent ratification of the affiant’s authority did not cure the initial defect at the time of filing, and the rules on required attachments serve a purpose in appellate review.
On the substantive issue, the Court agreed with the RTC that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for forcible entry. A valid complaint must allege prior physical possession by the plaintiff and deprivation thereof through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The allegations in the complaint merely stated that respondents entered the property and conducted construction activities after being discovered by the petitioner’s caretaker. Crucially, it did not specifically aver that the entry was accomplished by any of the means enumerated in the Rules. The complaint’s description of “forcible entry” was a conclusion of law. Without sufficient factual allegations detailing the specific manner of dispossession, the complaint was legally insufficient. Consequently, the RTC correctly dismissed it for failure to state a cause of action.