Case Digest (G.R. No. 238468)
Facts:
In Perlita Mabalo v. Heirs of Roman Babuyo (G.R. No. 238468, July 6, 2022), petitioner Perlita Mabalo bought on June 2, 2014 a purported 364-sq. m. portion of a 5,599-sq. m. lot in Kauswagan, Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental from Segundina Taranza Babuyo, daughter of Rufino Babuyo. The entire tract had been inherited undivided by the nine children of the late Roman Babuyo—Permitiva Tumampos, Felimon Babuyo, Rosita Encomal, Pasencia Jumoc, Rita Babuyo, Agripino Babuyo, Zuela Lig-ang, Lapas Dao-ao, and Victorino Babuyo—who took physical possession and made improvements after Roman’s death. On June 3, 2014, the heirs hired laborers to trim trees on the property, but Mabalo intervened, erected a fence marked “No Trespassing Private Property,” demolished two houses, and pruned plants. The heirs then filed a complaint for forcible entry on July 10, 2014 before the 4th MCTC of Balingasag–Lagonglong. On February 24, 2015, the MCTC ordered Mabalo to vacate the portion she purchased, remove iCase Digest (G.R. No. 238468)
Facts:
- Background of the Subject Lot
- Roman Babuyo owned a 5,599-sqm parcel in Kauswagan, Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental, covered by OCT No. P-10402, Free Patent No. 575915.
- Upon his death, nine children (heirs of Roman) took undivided physical possession, introduced improvements, and left the lot unpartitioned.
- Segundina’s Claim and Mabalo’s Entry
- Rufino Babuyo (another heir) left a daughter, Segundina, who claimed a 3,664-sqm pro-indiviso share and sold 364 sqm thereof to Perlita Mabalo on June 2, 2014.
- On June 3, 2014, Mabalo barred heirs from trimming a tree, erected a fence with “No Trespassing” signs, demolished two houses, and pruned plants on the portion she claimed.
- Procedural History
- Heirs filed a complaint for forcible entry on July 10, 2014; MCTC (Feb. 24, 2015) found forcible entry proven—ordered Mabalo to vacate the 364 sqm, remove improvements, pay P5,000 attorney’s fees, and P300/month rent; counterclaim dismissed.
- RTC (May 6, 2016) and CA (March 15, 2018) affirmed, holding the subject lot undivided, that Mabalo’s sale covered only Segundina’s pro-indiviso share, and she had no prior possession.
Issues:
- Main Issue
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the finding that Mabalo committed forcible entry and ordering her eviction and rent payments.
- Whether a co-owner may evict another co-owner through an ejectment action.
- Petitioner’s Contentions
- Segundina’s tax receipts prove her actual physical possession of the 364 sqm before sale.
- Some co-heirs sold shares; Mabalo’s entry was lawful exercise of ownership.
- Respondents’ Arguments
- Mabalo admitted no possession before June 3, 2014; her right commenced only upon sale.
- Heirs had prior physical possession; Mabalo used force by erecting fence and demolishing houses.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)