GR 160914; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160914 , March 25, 2015
MARCELA M. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO Q. HERMANO and his wife REMEDIOS HERMANO, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Antonio and Remedios Hermano, registered owners of a house and lot in Tagaytay City (TCT No. T-24503), filed a Complaint for Ejectment with Damages against petitioner Marcela M. Dela Cruz before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). They alleged that Dela Cruz occupied the property on September 1, 2001, pursuant to an alleged Memorandum of Agreement with Don Mario Enciso Benitez, without their authority or consent. They used the property as a rest house and sent a demand letter to vacate on September 27, 2001. In her Answer, Dela Cruz claimed that the Hermanos had already sold the property to Benitez, who then sold it to her via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 1, 2001, and that Antonio Hermano knew of her occupation. The MTCC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that while Antonio Hermano had executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Benitez, the transfer of title was conditional upon Benitez brokering Antonio’s purchase of a Caloocan City property, a condition not yet fulfilled. Thus, Antonio still owned the property when Benitez sold it to Dela Cruz. The MTCC ruled the proper remedy was an action for recovery (accion reivindicatoria), not ejectment, as there was no showing of forcible entry or unlawful detainer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC’s dismissal. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, declaring the case as one for forcible entry, finding that Antonio Hermano sufficiently alleged and proved prior physical possession and that Dela Cruz’s entry was by stealth, and ordered Dela Cruz to vacate. Dela Cruz filed the present Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether Antonio Hermano has adequately pleaded and proved a case of forcible entry.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition, REVERSED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the MTCC Decision dismissing the Complaint.
The Court held that while the Complaint’s allegations were sufficient in form and substance to establish the jurisdictional facts for forcible entry (i.e., deprivation of possession by stealth and filing within one year), the respondents failed to prove the essential element of prior physical possession. The claim that they used the property as a “rest house/vacation place” was a mere allegation unsupported by evidence. No proof was presented, such as photographs, receipts, or testimonies, to demonstrate that they were in prior physical possession of the property before Dela Cruz’s entry on September 1, 2001. The allegation alone, being self-serving, did not constitute preponderant evidence. Consequently, the MTCC correctly dismissed the ejectment case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s ruling is without prejudice to the parties pursuing the appropriate remedy, such as an action for recovery of ownership or possession.