ISIP vs QUINTOS

Pontino owns a lot. Rogelio sr. Took posession of the lot. Pontino sold his lot to datu but datu failed to
pay the full price. Despite non-payment of the full price, datu sold the lot to toyo keiki who employed
rogelio sr. To manage its water system put up in said lot. The lot was ultimately sold from pontino to de
guzman. De guzman with respondents put up the roniro enterprises which took the water system.
Rogelio sr. Died but his heirs were still occupying the lot. Respondents enticed the heirs to put up a car
repair shop to undertake repairs for an insurance company. On the pretext by respondents that during
an inspection by the insurance company the heirs must first vacate the property, the heirs vacated the
property. When they came back they were no longer allowed by respondents to enter the premises.
Petitioner filed an ejectment case on ground of forcible entry.
Petitioners argue that respondents deprived them of the possession of their lot through deceit, strategy,
and stealth. They aver that respondents deceived them to temporarily vacate the premises on the pretext
that they must convince the insurance inspectors that the premises are being used solely for commercial
purposes. They were thus allegedly tricked to move out and once the respondents achieved their goal,
they were prevented from entering the premises by posting security guards at the gates.
Did respondents commit forcible entry?
No. There is forcible entry if possession is illegal from the beginning. Respondents have title to the property. Their
possession of the property is therefore not illegal. Thus, they did not commit forcible entry despite their alleged
strategy.
Under section 1, rule 70 of the rules of court, a case of forcible entry may be filed by, a person deprived
of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth x x x. In cases
of forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has
the prior possession de facto.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Petitioners further assert that the lot they occupy is different from the lot occupied by the respondents.
They claim that their lot is located at no. 2, barrameda st., upper bicutan, taguig while the lot occupied by
the respondents is located in lower bicutan.

Can sc inquire into such fact?
No. The point raised by the [petitioners] x x x in respect of the identity of the property subject of the controversy
may not be considered anymore at this point since it was never raised as an issue in their appeal, nay even when the
case was heard by the court a quo. The supreme court is not a trier of facts. Only questions of law may be
entertained subject only to certain exceptions, none of which are present in the instant petition.

It is the function of trial courts to resolve actual issues whose findings on these matters are accorded respect and
considered binding by the supreme court especially when there is no conflict in the factual findings of both the trial
court and the appellate court. In this case, the metc, the rtc and the ca are one in their findings that respondents did
not forcibly enter the subject premises. All three tribunals found that respondents possession is lawful and legal
from the beginning.

Spouses Eulogio N. Antazo and Nelia C. Antazo vs. Leonides Doblada, et al., G.R. No. 178908,
February 4, 2010.

Ejectment; element of force in forcible entry. We also note that petitioners did not deny in their
Answer respondents allegation that they constructed a concrete fence on the subject property.
Failure to specifically deny the allegation amounts to a judicial admission. Unlawfully entering the
subject property, erecting a structure thereon and excluding therefrom the prior possessor would
necessarily imply the use of force. In order to constitute force, the trespasser does not have to
institute a state of war. No other proof is necessary. Spouses Eulogio N. Antazo and Nelia C. Antazo vs.
Leonides Doblada, et al., G.R. No. 178908, February 4, 2010.
Ejectment; issue of prior actual physical possession. Petitioners contend that respondents claim is
not supported by competent evidence. They aver that when they bought the property from Anciano,
the latter transferred to them possession and ownership of the subject property. They point out that,
after they purchased the property from Anciano, they declared it in their names for taxation
purposes and paid real property tax thereon. The petition is without merit. Petitioners argument is
misplaced, considering that this is a forcible entry case. They are apparently referring to
possession flowing from ownership of the property, as opposed to actual possession. In ejectment
cases, possession means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession in the
sense contemplated in civil law. Prior physical possession is the primary consideration in a forcible
entry case. 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 prior
possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person
with a better right lawfully ejects him. The party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown
out by a strong hand, violence or terror. We are convinced that respondents were in prior
possession of the property and that petitioners deprived them of such possession by means of force.
While the Letter intimates that petitioners were in possession of the property prior to respondents
and that the latter were the ones who forcibly evicted them therefrom, such statement is clearly self-
serving and unsupported by other evidence. Verily, this information, assuming that it is true, is not
relevant to the resolution of this case. This case involves respondents cause of action against
petitioners for evicting them from the subject property which was in their possession. It is
immaterial how respondents came into such possession or by what right they did so. Even usurpers
of land owned by another are entitled to remain on it until they are lawfully ejected
therefrom. Spouses Eulogio N. Antazo and Nelia C. Antazo vs. Leonides Doblada, et al., G.R. No. 178908,
February 4, 2010.

Ejectment; rationale of remedy. Granting that petitioners had earlier possession and respondents
were the ones who first forcibly dispossessed them of the property, this circumstance would not
have given petitioners license to recover possession in the same way. Such course of action is
precisely what is sought to be avoided by the rule on ejectment. The underlying philosophy behind
ejectment suits is to prevent breach of the peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out
of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his. The party
deprived of possession must not take the law into his own hands. Petitioners would have had a
right of action against respondents to file an ejectment suit, but they evidently let the chance pass
and chose the easier and faster way. Unfortunately for them, this time, their opponents chose to
resort to appropriate judicial measures. Spouses Eulogio N. Antazo and Nelia C. Antazo vs. Leonides
Doblada, et al., G.R. No. 178908, February 4, 2010.