MASALLO PL AINTIFF-APPELLEE

V.
CESAR RESPONDENT

Hinanay, Grace Anne NicoleR.

11687835
Wrongful Seizure
 ISSUE

Weather or not Masallo (the buyer of the land) or Cesar (the one
in possession of the land) has a better right of possession over
the land in question.
 RULE

SEC. 80, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,

Where a dispute over possession arises between two persons,
the person first having actual possession, as between them,
is the one who is entitled to maintain the action.
 ANALYSIS OF FACTS

• Masallo is claiming that he own the parcel of land and that Cesar
deprived him of the possession of the land.
• Cesar is claiming that the land in question is her property and has been
in her possession without interruption for more than twenty years.
• While Cesar was in possession of the land, one Matea Crispin executed a
deed to Masallo whereby she undertook to sell and transfer to him the
land in question. Matea admitted that she has not been in possession of
the land which is the subject-matter of her deed to Masallo, since the
cessation of the Spanish sovereignty in these Islands. She stated,
however, that the land in question had been mortgaged by her to one
Eugenia Perez, who testified on behalf of Masallo that she, Perez, had
been in possession of the land from 1889 until 1914.
• After Matea executed the deed, Masallo commenced to plow the land
with his laborers. Cesar approached and informed him that she owns the
land. An altercation occurred between them and as a result, Masallo
withdrew and commenced an action against Cesar.
 CONCLUSION

• The evidence shows that until he went upon the land for the purpose of plowing it,
acting on the strength of his deed from Matea, Masallo had never been in
possession of this property.
• While Cesar is shown to have had the prior peaceful possession of the disputed
parcel of ground for an indefinite period of time in the part. Therefore, when
Masallo, after acquiring a deed to the land from Matea, entered upon the premises
with his laborers and began plowing the land, it was he who was guilty of the
wrongful seizure of the property; and Cesar undoubtedly then had a perfect
right to maintain an action of unlawful detainer against the Masallo to regain
possession.
• Where a dispute over possession arises between two persons, the person first
having actual possession, as between them, is the one who is entitled to
maintain the action granted in section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If
this were not so, a mere usurper without any right whatever, might enter upon the
property of another and, by allowing himself to be ordered off, could acquired the
right to maintain the action of forcible entry and detainer, however momentary his
intrusion might have been.
• In an action of forcible entry and detainer instituted against an intruder who enters
upon the land for FISTS, the plaintiff must prove a prior possession.
 CONCLUSION

• Also, the Court ruled that a person who does not have actual
possession of real property cannot transfer constructive
possession by the execution and delivery of a public document
by which the title to the land is transferred.
• As Matea admits, however, that she did not have possession of
the land when she executed and delivered her deed to plaintiff,
the mere execution and delivery of the deed did not constitute
a delivery of possession. 
•