HEIRS OF PEDRO LAURORA AND LEONORA LAURORA vs. STERLING TECHNOPARK III AND S.P. PROPERTIES, INC., G.R. No. 146815, April 9, 2003
Main Issue: Physical Possession of the Land
The only issue in forcible entry cases is the physical or
material possession of real property -- possession de facto, not possession de
jure.[10] Only prior physical
possession, not title, is the issue.[11] If ownership is raised in
the pleadings, the court may pass upon such question, but only to determine the
question of possession.[12]
The ownership claim of respondents upon the land is based on the
evidence they presented. Their evidence, however, did not squarely
address the issue of prior possession. Even if they succeed in proving
that they are the owners of the land,[13] the fact remains that they
have not alleged or proved that they physically possess it by virtue of such
ownership. On the other hand, petitioners’ prior possession of the land
was not disputed by the CA, which merely described it as usurpation.[14]
We stress that the issue of ownership in ejectment cases is to
be resolved only when it is intimately intertwined with the issue of
possession,[15] to such an extent that the
question of who had prior possession cannot be determined without ruling on the
question of who the owner of the land is.[16] No such intertwinement has
been shown in the case before us. Since respondents’ claim of ownership
is not being made in order to prove prior possession, the ejectment court
cannot intrude or dwell upon the issue of ownership.[17]
Notwithstanding the actual condition of the title to the
property, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror
-- not even by the owners.[18] If such illegal manner of
ejectment is employed, as it was in the present case, the party who proves
prior possession -- in this case, petitioners -- can recover possession even
from the owners themselves.[19]
Granting arguendo that petitioners illegally entered into and
occupied the property in question, respondents had no right to take the law
into their own hands and summarily or forcibly eject the occupants therefrom.
Verily, even if petitioners were mere usurpers of the land owned
by respondents, still they are entitled to remain on it until they are lawfully
ejected therefrom. Under appropriate circumstances, respondents may file,
other than an ejectment suit, an accion publiciana -- a plenary action intended
to recover the better right to possess;[20] or an accion
reivindicatoria -- an action to recover ownership of real property.[21]
The availment of the aforementioned remedies is the legal
alternative to prevent breaches of peace and criminal disorder resulting from
the use of force by claimants out to gain possession.[22] The rule of law does not
allow the mighty and the privileged to take the law into their own hands to
enforce their alleged rights. They should go to court and seek judicial
vindication.
X x x.”
