G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953
VICENTE DY SUN, petitioner, vs. RICARDO BRILLANTES and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Dy Sun filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan, Rizal, against respondent Ricardo Brillantes over a parcel of land. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that petitioner, being a Chinese citizen, had no right to acquire the land. The Court of First Instance of Rizal affirmed this dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision on two grounds: (1) Brillantes was in possession of the land long before Dy Sun supposedly acquired it through purchase, so Dy Sun could not have been deprived of possession by force, intimidation, strategy, or stealth as he never was in occupancy; and (2) Dy Sun, as a Chinese national, could not have acquired the land and thus could not validly allege that possession was being unlawfully withheld from him.

ISSUE

1. Is prior physical possession a condition precedent for a vendee to file an action for unlawful detainer?
2. In a detainer action where the sale is admitted but its validity is questioned on the ground of the vendee’s alienage, can the question of possession be decided without first settling the question of title?
3. May the defendant occupant in a detainer action question the validity of the sale on the ground of the vendee’s alienage when neither the vendor nor the State questions it?

RULING

1. No. Prior physical possession is not a condition precedent for a vendee to file an unlawful detainer action. The action filed by petitioner is one for unlawful detainer, not forcible entry. In unlawful detainer, the defendant’s possession was originally lawful but became unlawful upon the expiration of his right to possess. A vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor and succeeds to his rights; the vendee’s possession is, in contemplation of law, that of the vendor. The Court of Appeals erred in confusing the action with forcible entry.
2. Yes. The only issue in a detainer action is physical possession (possession de facto), not title (possession de jure). Title is not involved. The case can be determined without passing upon the validity of the acquisition. The issue of the sale’s validity should be determined in a separate action. Respondent admits the fact of sale, and unless that sale is disputed in a proper action and rendered invalid, petitioner is entitled to be recognized as entitled to possession. Respondent is a mere tenant, and whether he is unlawfully withholding possession can be determined without looking into the validity of the sale.
3. No. Respondent cannot question the validity of the sale on the ground of petitioner’s alienage because he is not a party to the sale, either principally or subsidiarily. Furthermore, if the sale took place in 1944 as alleged, the Constitution prohibiting such acquisition by aliens was not in force at that time, following the ruling in the Krivenko case.