G.R. No.

149118 February 16, 2006

CAJAYON and CONSTANTINO, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES SANTIAGO and FORTUNATA BATUYONG, Respondents.

Facts:
 Petition for review on certiorari to challenge CA rulings of affirming RTC and MeTC and denying
the motion for reconsideration of petitioners
 Originally, petitioners and Candelaria are co-owners 260 sq.m of lot
 February 1, 1995- said co-owners subdivided this parcel of land by virtue of a Partition Agreement
 Partition: Petitioners own Lot 6-B 160sq.m while Respondents own Lot 6-A 100sq.m
 May 30, 1995 - Candelaria sold his share to the herein plaintiffs: Santiago and Batuyong, including
the improvements thereon, in the sum of ₱100,000.00, under a Deed of Absolute
 Sometime in May 21, 1996 - defendants started construction works in the area and intruded into
the lot owned by the plaintiffs causing the latter to protest and report the matter to the barangay
authorities; parties were summoned to appear before the Barangay Chairman wherein defendants
agreed to stop the construction works
 June 7, 1996 - they agreed to defer the matter pending the result of a survey to be conducted by a
government surveyor
 September 5, 1996 - Geodetic Engineer Florentina C. Valencia conducted a survey of the
aforesaid property and placed the concrete monuments thereon in the presence of plaintiffs and
defendants
 November 12, 1996 - verification survey report was submitted by Geodetic Engineer Florentina C.
Valencia together with the survey verification plan
 despite defendants’ knowledge of the property boundary, and despite repeated serious objections
from plaintiffs, defendants proceeded to construct a seven-door bungalow-type semi-concrete
building, occupying at least 10.18 square meters and another 10.43 square meters for the right of
way, thus encroaching upon at least 20.61 square meters of plaintiffs’ lot, and further demolishing
plaintiff’s wall
 defendants in manifest bad faith, wanton attitude, and in a malevolent and oppressive manner and
in utter disregard of the property rights of plaintiffs, have failed and refused, and still fail and refuse
to vacate the same up to the present time
ISSUES:
1. WON, petitioners are guilty of Unlawful Detainer.
2. WON, the respondents are barred by prescription in filing action.
3. WON, the petitioners are builders of good faith.
4. WON, the Court can reassess the factual findings of the verification survey report.
HELD:
“Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.”
1. No. Since Petitioners are guilty of Forcible Entry. (For further readings please read page 4 from the
fulltxt case.)
Unlawful Detainer Forcible Entry Application of Forcible Entry
 plaintiff need not be in prior  plaintiff must prove that he was in * Respondents had been in prior
physical possession. prior physical possession of the physical possession of the property in
premises until he was deprived the concept of owner prior to
thereof by the defendant petitioners’ intrusion on 21 May 1996
 the possession of the defendant  possession of the land by the *Despite various demands by
is inceptively lawful but it defendant is unlawful from the respondents to vacate, petitioners
becomes illegal by reason of the beginning as he acquires obstinately refused to do so. Clearly,
termination of his right to the possession thereof by force, petitioners’ entry into the said property
possession of the property under intimidation, threat, strategy or was illegal from the beginning,
his contract with the plaintiff stealth precluding an action for unlawful
detainer
 the plaintiff must first make such  the law does not require a On the other hand, to establish a case
demand, which is jurisdictional in previous demand for the of forcible entry, the complaint must
nature.23 defendant to vacate the premises allege that one in physical possession
 of a land or building has been deprived
of that possession by another through
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth. It is not essential, however,
that the complaint should expressly
employ the language of the law. It
would be sufficient that facts are set
up showing that dispossession took
place under said conditions.

 To constitute the use of "force" as contemplated in the above-mentioned provision, The act of going on
the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over
the property, and this is all that is necessary.

2. The suit was filed well within the one (1)-year period mandated by law. Records show that the
ejectment suit was instituted on 11 April 1997. Petitioners’ actual entry into the property, according
to the complaint, took place on 21 May 1996.
 Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court allows a plaintiff to bring an action in the proper
inferior court for forcible entry or unlawful detainer within one (1) year, respectively,
after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. In forcible entry, the one-
year period is counted from the date of actual entry on the land.

3. This contention is not tenable. Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is
building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.28 In the instant case, when the
verification survey report came to petitioners’ knowledge their good faith ceased.
 The survey report is a professional’s field confirmation of petitioners’ encroachment of
respondents’ titled property. It is doctrinal in land registration law that possession of titled
property adverse to the registered owner is necessarily tainted with bad faith. Thus,
proceeding with the construction works on the disputed lot despite knowledge of
respondents’ ownership put petitioners in bad faith.

4. No. Factual matters cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.

 Court at this stage is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by
the lower courts.
 the verification survey was conducted with the agreement of both parties and in their
presence.