Background: YES.
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS
Savellano VS Diaz Martin Savellano alleges that Pelagia Diaz, in executing a
(1963) public instrument/agreement between them, allowed
Savellano exclusive use of a parcel of land + to harvest
hemp stalks planter therein, in Mawab, Tagum, Davao (it
was registered as a Homestead Application) --- until Diaz
could return the consideration of P600.
Savellano then took possession of the land, and
cared/preserved the hemp stalks therein.
CFI Davao:
Savellano --- instituted case for forcible entry: claims
that 2 years later, Diaz --- w/o paying back the P600
consideration/redeeming the property --- forcibly entered
upon the parcel of land and took some of the hemp he had
harvested. He claims that Diaz repeatedly did these acts of
dispossession.
- He prays for (1) preliminary injunction, (2) to be
restored to the property, and to be (3) paid damages,
(4) travel expenses, and the (5) value for the stolen
hemp
Diaz: claimed the debt of P600 had already had been
paid/extinguished by the amount of hemp stalks cut and
harvested by Savellano. Allegedly, Diaz made demands for
him to render an accounting of the harvest of hemp but he
refused. Also, Diaz interposed a counterclaim that
Savellanos unfounded suit against them had disturbed
their peaceful possession of the parcel of land and
prejudiced them in their work and caused them damages.
CFI: in favor of Savellano, ordering that he be restored in
the actual and physical possession of the land in question,
that he be paid actual damages.
Diaz appealed
ISSUE: W/N Savellano was in actual possession of the land?
TRANSFERRED TO SAVELLANO VIA PUBLIC
INSTRUMENT/AGREEMENT WITH DIAZ
As in an action of forcible entry, the point to ascertain is, who
was in actual and physical possession of that part of the parcel of
land at the time the dispossession complained of took place.
Diaz claims that possession of that part of the parcel of land was
not transferred to Savellano, but only the right to harvest hemp
therein.
On the other hand, Savellano asserts that possession of that part
of the parcel of land together with the right to harvest hemp
therein was transferred to him. --- this is supported by the
agreement w/c was executed by the parties in 1954, w/c states
therein that possession was also transferred to Savellano.
It is a fact then that Savellano had been in actual and physical
possession of the parcel of land in question with the right to
harvest the hemp therein since 28 December 1954
Diaz, in using force to recover possession of a property from a
legal possessor violates article 536 of the Civil Code:
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 a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the
aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
Judgment of CFI is affirmed.