G.R. No. 172547 June 30, 2009
PRECY BUNYI and MILA BUNYI, Petitioners, vs. FE S. FACTOR, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Fe S. Factor is a co-owner of an 18-hectare land in Las Piñas City, originating from her grandparents Constantino Factor and Maura Mayuga-Factor, who were in possession since before 1906. In 1975, the children of Constantino and Maura filed a petition for original registration of title, which was granted in 1994. The siblings sold seven hectares, agreeing that respondent’s father, Enrique Factor, would receive as his share the “Factor compound” in Pilar Executive Village. Enrique built several houses in the compound, including a rest house used by the family. Petitioners Precy Bunyi and Mila Bunyi were tenants in another house (No. 8 Antioch St.) within the compound since 1999. Upon Enrique’s death in 1993, administration passed to his eldest child, Gloria Factor-Labao. When Gloria died in 2001, administration passed to respondent Fe S. Factor. Respondent allowed Gloria’s widower, Ruben Labao, to stay intermittently at the rest house as a guest. On May 31, 2002, Ruben Labao married petitioner Precy Bunyi. Ruben died on November 10, 2002. Respondent discovered that petitioners had forcibly opened the rest house, stolen personal properties, and occupied it. When respondent tried to enter on December 1, 2002, an unidentified person threatened her with a bolo. Respondent filed a complaint for forcible entry on September 12, 2003. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled for respondent, ordering petitioners to vacate, pay monthly rental of ₱2,000.00 from December 1, 2002, and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals affirmed the MeTC decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding that force, threat, intimidation, or stealth was committed by petitioners in occupying the property.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent has a better right of physical possession.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of monthly rental.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court declined to review the factual finding that petitioners employed force or stealth, as the Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the lower courts, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding.
2. The Court of Appeals did not err. In ejectment cases, the sole issue is physical or material possession (possession de facto), independent of ownership. Prior possession de facto may be recovered even from the owner. Possession can be acquired not only by physical occupation but also by juridical acts like succession. Petitioners failed to prove prior possession. Petitioner Precy admitted that Gloria Factor-Labao and Ruben Labao resided elsewhere and only visited the rest house. Ruben’s marriage and death certificates indicated residences other than the subject property. In contrast, respondent’s predecessors had been in possession since before 1975, confirmed by the 1994 land registration decision. As an heir of Enrique, respondent acquired hereditary rights, including the right to possession, even before judicial declaration. Upon Gloria’s death, respondent, as a co-owner, was subrogated to the right of administration. Respondent’s claim of prior possession, traced through her predecessors, prevails over petitioners’ unsupported claim.
3. The Court of Appeals did not err. In forcible entry, the defendant is considered a possessor in bad faith from the beginning. A possessor in bad faith is liable for rents or fruits from the time of unlawful deprivation. The award of ₱2,000.00 monthly rental from December 1, 2002 (the date respondent was barred from entry) is proper.