GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC.

V COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are
owners of the land situated in sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal
(the land being disputed in the case at bar.) The spouses Jose executed a
special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management
Services to develop their property. They have already acquired the proper
permits to do so but they discovered that the land was occupied by the
respondent with 20 other farmers (members of the Concerned of Farmers
Association.) These farmers have occupied the land for the last twelve to
fifteen years prior to the issuance of the permits and they already have their
crops all over the property. In short, they are in actual possession of the
land.

Petitioners tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and; demolish and
bulldoze their crops and property. The respondents filed in CFI because
they were deprived of their property without due process of law by
trespassing, demolishing and bulldozing their crops and property situated in
the land. CFI and RTC denied it but CA reversed the decision. Petitioners
tried to appeal the decision in CA but were denied thus this appeal

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are entitled to file a forcible entry case
against petitioner?

RULING:
YES, they are entitled to file a forcible entry case! Since private
respondents were in actual possession of the property at the time they
were forcibly ejected by petitioner, private respondents have a right to
commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the legality or illegality
of possession.
Private respondents, as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry
case against petitioner because ownership is not in issue. Forcible entry is
merely a quieting process and never determines the actual title to an
estate. Title is not involved, only actual possession. It is undisputed that
private respondents were in possession of the property and not the
petitioners nor the spouses Jose. Although the petitioners have a valid
claim over ownership this does not in any way justify their act of forcible
entry. It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of the title to
the property the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out
by a strong hand, violence or terror. Thus, a party who can prove prior
possession can recover such possession even against the owner
himself.Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his
favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the
property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The doctrine of self help, which
the petitioners were using to justify their actions, are not applicable in the
case because it can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened
dispossession which is absent in the case at bar (in fact they are the ones
who are threatening to remove the respondents with the use of force.)
Article 536 basically tells us that the owner or a person who has a better
right over the land must resort to judicial means to recover the property
from another person who possesses the land.

When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of property. As clearly stated in Article 536- In
no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long
as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has
an action or right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke
the aid of the competent court, if holder should refuse to deliver the thing

177 SCRA 495 Civil Law Property Doctrine of Self-Help

In February 1982, the spouses Manuel and Cynthia Jose contracted with German
Management and Services, Inc. for the latter to develop their landholdings into a residential
subdivision. The spouses also executed a special power of attorney to that effect.
German Management started the project in February 1983, however, German Management
discovered that the land was being possessed by Ernest0 Villeza et al who were the
farmers tilling the said land at that time. German Management spoke with Villeza et al but
the farmers refused to vacate the land as the farmers claimed that they have been
occupying the land for twelve years.
Nevertheless, German Management went on to develop the property and demolished the
properties of the farmers without acquiring a court order. In turn, Villeza et al filed a case of
forcible entry against German Management. In its defense, German Management invoked
the Doctrine of Self-help which provides that:
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
or usurpation of his property. (Article 429, Civil Code)
ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of self-help is applicable in this case.
HELD: No. The Doctrine of Self-help is not applicable because at the time when German
Management excluded the farmers, theres no longer an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation. That actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion by the
farmers have already lapsed 12 years ago when they began occupying the said land. In
fact, they were already peaceably farming the land.
What should have been the remedy by German Management?
German Management should have filed either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria to
lawfully eject the farmers.
But the farmers are not the real owners and in fact, the spouses Jose have a lawful title
over the land?
Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet
possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Further, there is now
a presumption of ownership in favor of the farmers since they are the ones occupying the
said property. They can only be ejected either by accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoriathrough which the spouses Joses better right may be proven.