Author: Coco Navarro

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS

ASSOCIATION, INC. V COURT OF APPEALS (1996)
Petition: Certioriari
Petitioner: Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents (COCLAI)
Respondent: Court of Appeals, National Housing Authority (NHA)
Ponencia: Hermosisima

DOCTRINE: In an action for forcible entry, the only issue involved is mere
physical possession (possession de facto) and not juridical possession
(possession de jure) nor ownership.

FACTS:
1. A parcel of timber land was released as a disposable public land.
COCLAI was authorized to survey the land for the purpose of
subdivision into residential slots. COCLAI filed for a Sales
Application for the lot but it was held in abeyance by the Bureau of
Lands because there was a pending annulment case against a
certain Benedicta Salcedo who has an original certificate of title over
the said property. The title was annulled.
2. In spite of this, COCLAI members occupied the said land. This
parcel of land became the subject of a Slum Improvement and
Resettlement project of the NHA and subsequently, the Bureau of
Lands rejected the subdivision survey submitted by the COCLAI.
3. NHA demolished the structures erected by COCLAI. In turn, COCLAI
filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages against NHA
employees and police officers.
4. The MTCC ruled in favor of COCLAI and ruled for the restoration of
their portions of the land. The RTC affirmed the ruling.
5. Meanwhile, an original certificate of title for the land in question was
issued in the name of NHA. NHA filed for a complaint for Quieting
of Title with Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
against COCLAI. The RTC issued a TRO, stopping COCLAI from
enforcing the results of the civil case but this was later dismissed. CA
reversed the decision.


ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the NHA is entitled to the injunction prayed for
2. Whether or not NHA has a better right to the possession of the lot as
a necessary consequence of ownership


PROVISIONS OF LAW
1. Injunction a remedy to preserve status quo availed of to prevent
acts until the merits of the case are heard; strong arm of equity for
the preservation of rights. Essential requisites: 1) there must be a
right in esse or in existence to be protected; 2) the act against which
the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right
2. sad
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES, NHA was entitled to such writ because a certificate of title has
already been issued in its name. This was necessary because there
was a need to restrain the decision of the MTCC as soon as the
status of the land was changed. Clearly, the government through the
NHA will be prejudiced if the lands were restored to the COCLAI
members.
2. YES, NHA has a better right. Apart from mere administration as
petitioners argue, the certificate of title vested not only ownership but
also the right of possession as a necessary consequence of the right
to ownership.
Furthermore, on the issue of forcible entry the only issue involved
is mere physical possession (possession de facto) and not juridical
possession (possession de jure) nor ownership. Since the case filed
by COCLAI to the MTCC was merely that of forcible entry, the legal
title is not in question. The judgment rendered is effective only with
respect to possession of the land. BUT after the denial of its Sales
Patent Application, COCLAIs occupation/possession of the land has
become illegal. The members have become mere squatters whose
continuous possession is considered bad faith. They will acquire no
legal right over the land.