GR 171842; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171842 ; July 22, 2009
Gloria S. Dy, Petitioner, vs. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc., Respondent.
FACTS
The dispute involves a government-leased property in Binondo, Manila. The Philippine National Bank (PNB) held the primary lease from the government, subleasing a portion to respondent Mandy Commodities. Upon the lease’s expiration, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) initially revoked then reinstated, and later withdrew, the renewal of PNB’s lease. This led to parallel court cases: PNB filed an injunction case against the government (PNB Injunction Case), and the Land Management Bureau (LMB) eventually took possession of the property. Relying on a provisional permit from LMB, petitioner Gloria Dy entered the property on October 10, 2003. Respondent, the sub-lessee, filed its own injunction case and regained possession on October 21, 2003. However, on November 7, 2003, petitioner forcibly retook possession. Respondent then filed a forcible entry case against petitioner.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal in the forcible entry case, thereby upholding respondent’s prior possession and better right to the property.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ruling hinges on the principle of prior possession in ejectment cases. The Court emphasized that in forcible entry, the only issue is physical or material possession (possession de facto), independent of claims of ownership. Respondent, as the sub-lessee, was in prior physical possession of the property. Petitioner’s subsequent entry on November 7, 2003, was effected by force, constituting forcible entry. Critically, petitioner’s claim to possession, based on an LMB provisional permit, was legally infirm. The Supreme Court noted that in the related PNB Injunction Case, the Court of Appeals had already declared the LMB’s earlier takeover of the property void. Consequently, LMB had no valid authority to issue the provisional permit to petitioner. Since respondent’s prior possession was undisturbed by any lawful demand to vacate from either the government or PNB, respondent retained a better right to possession. Therefore, the forcible entry case was properly decided in respondent’s favor.