G.R. No. L-26356 June 27, 1973
CARLOS SALIWAN and IGMIDIO SALIWAN, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ANTONIO AMORES (CALIWAN) and FRANCISCA CALIWAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

This case originated as a forcible entry action filed in 1962 by plaintiffs-appellees, the nephews of the late Monico Amores, to recover three parcels of agricultural land from defendants-appellants. Plaintiffs claimed ownership and prior physical possession, alleging defendants forcibly entered the land in October 1961. Defendants countered that they are the legitimate children and sole heirs of Monico Amores, the acknowledged original owner, and that they rightfully took possession in 1960 per their father’s instructions to the encargado.
The municipal court ruled for the plaintiffs based on prior physical possession. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Samar conducted a trial de novo. In a pre-trial conference, the parties agreed the lands were originally owned by Monico Amores and joined the issues of defendants’ filiation and prior physical possession. The trial court made definitive factual findings: it held that defendants Antonio Amores and Francisca Caliwan are indeed the children of Monico Amores and Valeriana Daep, and that upon Monico’s death, all his rights over the lands were transmitted to them as his rightful heirs. The court also expressly found that the plaintiffs’ prior possession was “unlawful.”

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, having found the defendants to be the lawful owners and heirs entitled to de jure possession, correctly ordered them to vacate the land in favor of the plaintiffs who were found to be in unlawful prior possession.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The legal logic is clear: once the case was appealed to the Court of First Instance and a trial de novo was conducted where the parties voluntarily submitted and tried the issues of ownership and filiation, the proceeding was transformed. The court exercised its original jurisdiction over the case by the common assent of the parties, as provided under Section 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the case was no longer confined to the limited issue of prior physical possession characteristic of a forcible entry suit.
Having conclusively resolved the fundamental issues of title and hereditary succession in favor of the defendants-appellants, declaring them the lawful owners, the lower court committed a reversible error. It was illogical and legally untenable to then order these lawful owners to vacate the property and restore possession to plaintiffs whose possession was judicially declared unlawful. The proper action was to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court thus rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring defendants-appellants as the children and rightful heirs of Monico Amores, entitled to ownership and possession of the lands in question.