G.R. No. 242837 . October 05, 2022
EUFROCINA RIVERA, PETITIONER, VS. ROLANDO G. VELASCO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Eufrocina Rivera is the registered owner of three parcels of land in Nueva Ecija under Original Certificates of Title. She filed a complaint for forcible entry with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against respondent Rolando Velasco, alleging that on June 21, 2014, she discovered that Velasco, by means of strategy and stealth, had entered and occupied a portion of her titled property, constructing a house without her consent. She demanded that he vacate, but he refused. In his defense, Velasco claimed to be the lawful owner and possessor of the contested portion since 1995. He argued that Rivera’s titles were fraudulently obtained, as evidenced by a pending protest he filed with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and that the MTC lacked jurisdiction as the elements of forcible entry were absent.
The MTC ruled in favor of Rivera, finding she established prior physical possession since 1992 through a Barangay Certification and a CENRO Report. It held that her Torrens titles could not be collaterally attacked. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the lower courts. The CA found that Rivera failed to prove her prior physical possession of the specific area occupied by Velasco. It held that her evidence pertained to possession of the entire titled parcels, not the specific disputed portion, and that her cause of action was not forcible entry but an accion publiciana or an action for recovery of ownership.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint for forcible entry and in ruling that the petitioner failed to establish the jurisdictional facts of prior physical possession and deprivation thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the MTC and RTC decisions. The Court clarified that a complaint for forcible entry is sufficient if it alleges prior physical possession by the plaintiff and that the defendant deprived her of that possession through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Rivera’s complaint meticulously alleged these elements, stating she was in prior possession and was deprived thereof by Velasco’s strategy and stealth when he entered and built a house. Jurisdiction is conferred by the allegations in the complaint, not by the defenses raised or the evidence presented during trial.
The Court emphasized that prior physical possession need not be possession of the specific disputed area at the precise moment of dispossession. Prior possession of the entire tract of titled land, as proven by Rivera’s titles and supporting documents, sufficiently establishes prior possession of any portion thereof. The respondent’s entry onto any part of the titled property constitutes dispossession of the titled owner. Furthermore, the respondent’s claim of ownership and attack on the petitioner’s titles based on alleged fraud is a collateral attack prohibited under the Property Registration Decree. A Torrens title can only be challenged in a direct proceeding for its cancellation. The pending DENR protest does not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction over the forcible entry case, which is purely a possessory action. The MTC correctly exercised jurisdiction, and its factual findings on prior possession, affirmed by the RTC, are binding and conclusive.