G.R. No. 417 : February 17, 1902
FELICIANA DE GUZMAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MIGUEL FABIE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Feliciana de Guzman, who had been a servant of the late Tiburcia Ortiz, continued to occupy the house of her deceased employer after the latter’s death on December 22, 1899. She initially occupied the upper story but later voluntarily moved to the half story to accommodate relatives of the deceased. When these relatives left, Miguel Fabie, claiming ownership of the house as the universal heir under a will executed by Ortiz in 1896, rented out the upper-story rooms to other parties. Fabie also formally demanded through a notary that De Guzman vacate the half story and subsequently filed an action for eviction against her, which was decided in his favor. De Guzman instituted an action of interdiction (forcible entry and detainer) to retain possession of the half story and recover possession of the upper story, claiming she was a legatee under an earlier 1889 will of Ortiz, though she presented no legal proof of this will.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff’s action of interdiction (to retain and recover possession) can be sustained.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor of the defendant.
1. As to the interdict to recover possession of the upper story: The action cannot be sustained. The plaintiff had voluntarily vacated the upper-story rooms and had not reacquired possession before the defendant rented them out. Since she was not in possession at the time of the alleged ouster, there was no possession from which she could be unlawfully deprived.
2. As to the interdict to retain possession of the half story: The action also cannot be sustained. The defendant’s notarial demand to vacate was merely a preliminary step to initiate a legal action for eviction, which he had a right to do. Such a demand does not constitute an act intended to disturb possession or effect an ouster within the meaning of the law governing possessory actions (interdictos). The purpose of interdicts is to prevent parties from taking the law into their own hands, not to obstruct the use of proper judicial processes.
The Court found it unnecessary to rule on other questions raised, such as the propriety of consolidating the two interdicts or the plaintiff’s request for a stay pending other related cases, as the record showed she had withdrawn her incidental motion and asked the court to proceed with judgment.