G.R. No. 18105 ; June 22, 1922
RUFINO PABICO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ONG PAUCO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Rufino Pabico possessed the land in question from February 1908 until December 14, 1918. Defendant Ong Pauco was the plaintiff in a civil case against Josefa V. Chaves. In that case, the sheriff levied on the same land and sold it at public auction to Ong Pauco on June 18, 1914, with a deed of sale executed on June 29, 1918. On October 23, 1918, the provincial sheriff delivered physical possession of the land to Ong Pauco. It was stipulated that at all times during the execution proceedings, Pabico was in possession of the land and was not the judgment debtor. Pabico filed an action for forcible entry and detainer, alleging wrongful deprivation on December 4, 1918. The trial court ruled in favor of Ong Pauco, holding that his possession resulted from a sheriff’s sale and was therefore legal until annulled.

ISSUE

Whether an action for forcible entry and detainer lies against a purchaser at an execution sale who was placed in possession by the sheriff, when the person dispossessed was not the judgment debtor and was in prior possession.

RULING

Yes. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The sheriff’s act of delivering possession to the purchaser was null and void ab initio because the sheriff’s duties are ministerial and limited to carrying out court orders. The writ of execution did not command the sheriff to deliver possession, making the sheriff and the purchaser mere trespassers. Forcible entry is established by the act of excluding the lawful possessor, which implies the exertion of force over the property, even without violence. The defendant is ordered to deliver possession to the plaintiff and pay damages of P25 per year from December 14, 1918, until possession is restored, plus costs.