GR 452; (April, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 452 : April 30, 1902
GAUDENCIO SIMPAO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN DIZON, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Gaudencio Simpao filed a summary proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga to recover possession of two tracts of land in Porac from Joaquin Dizon. Simpao alleged he was the owner, having acquired the land in June 1888 from Gaudencio de Mesa by a sale with a right of repurchase, and that he had been in possession since, leasing it to Cecilio Lacsamana. He claimed Dizon took possession in September 1900 despite opposition. Dizon answered that he acted as the agent of Miguel de Mesa, the alleged owner, and took charge of cultivation by Mesa’s order after Lacsamana refused to pay rent, and that the action could not be maintained against him as a mere agent. The trial court ruled in favor of Simpao, restoring possession and reserving the rights of both parties to litigate ownership in a separate action. Dizon appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether a summary action for forcible entry (to recover possession) can be maintained by the owner/lessor against the person who dispossessed his tenant.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The Court held that the evidence, particularly the documentary evidence of Simpao’s title and possessory information, corroborated the testimony that Simpao was in possession through his tenant Lacsamana and that Dizon dispossessed Lacsamana. In a summary proceeding for forcible entry, the only issues are: (1) whether the claimant was in actual possession or tenancy, and (2) whether he was disturbed in such possession by the defendant. An owner has the right to maintain such an action to protect his civil possession; otherwise, he could lose it under Article 460 of the Civil Code if the new possession lasts a year. The Civil Code grants every possessor the right to be protected in or restored to his possession. The action lies against the person who commits the trespass, and the defendant cannot avoid liability by claiming he acted under another’s direction. The Court found the plaintiff’s evidence sufficient to prove both required issues.