Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CA
September 14, 1989 | Fernan, CJ. | Possession
Digester: Bea, Alexis
SUMMARY: This case is one for forcible entry: Souses Jose own a
parcel of land and authorized German Management Services to
develop said property. But part of it was already occupied by
private respondents. When petitioner asked them to vacate the
premises, they refused so it destroyed the barbed wires enclosing
the farmholdings and destroyed their crops. The court ruled for
the respondents claiming that ownership is not an issue in a
forcible entry case.
DOCTRINE: A party who can prove prior possession can recover
such possession even against the owner himself. He has the
security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is
lawfully ejected by a person having a better right through the
involvement of a competent court.
FACTS:
Spouses Cynthia Cuyugkeng Joa and Manuel Rene Jose are
residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are the owners of
a parcel of land situated in Sitio Inarawan, Antipolo, Rizal with
an area of 232, 942 square meters
o They are covered TCT No. 50023 of the Register of
Deeds issued on September 11, 1980
o The land was originally registered on August 5, 1948
in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal as OCT
No. 19 through a Homestead Patent
o Said Homestead Patent was granted on July 27,
1948 under Act No. 141
Spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney
authorizing petitioner German Management Services to
develop their property into a residential subdivision
(February 26, 1982)
Petitioner obtained Development Permit No. 00424 from
the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission for said
development (Feb 9, 1983)
o Part of the property was occupied by private
respondents (Ernesto Villeza and Orlando Gernale)
and 20 other persons
o Petitioner advised occupants to vacate the premises
but the latter refused
NOTES: