Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1542)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1542)
Facts:
Gorgonio P. Palajos v. Jose Manolo E. Abad, G.R. No. 205832, March 07, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Gorgonio P. Palajos; respondent is Jose Manolo E. Abad (one of the plaintiffs in the ejectment case).On February 25, 2006, Manolo and his siblings (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for forcible entry with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Quezon City, Branch 38, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-35654, against Palajos and several others (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged they were registered owners of Lots 5, 7 and 9 of Block 73, Pound Street, Phase 8, North Fairview, Quezon City (subject property) by virtue of titles they acquired from their parents in 1999; they asserted they took actual possession in September–October 2001 and constructed a concrete perimeter fence. Plaintiffs alleged that in the third week of January 2006 defendants clandestinely destroyed parts of the fence, entered the property and built houses, and that their demands to vacate were ignored.
Palajos answered, claiming prior entry to Lot No. 5 by virtue of a May 4, 1988 deed of absolute sale from B.C. Regalado & Co.; he also offered evidence of tax payments (2005–2006), a telephone billing (2004) and a COMELEC registration application (2003) to support prior possession. While the MeTC granted plaintiffs’ motion for default as to other defendants, it admitted Palajos’ answer; in a September 21, 2007 Decision the MeTC ruled for plaintiffs, finding they had prior physical possession and directing defendants to vacate the lots and pay monthly rentals and attorney’s fees.
Palajos appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In an August 28, 2009 Decision the RTC reversed the MeTC, finding plaintiffs failed to prove prior actual physical possession and dismissed the forcible entry case against Palajos. Manolo then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA). In its September 4, 2012 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 111323 the CA granted Manolo’s petition, reversed the RTC and reinstated the MeTC Decision; the CA denied Palajos’ motion for reconsideration in a February 7, 2013 Resolution. Palajos filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that respondent had prior physical possession of Lot No. 5 (i.e., did respondent prove prior possession over petitioner)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that the defendants’ entry was clandestine (stealth) and that the action was timely filed within the one-year prescriptive period?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)