Case Digest (G.R. No. 156360)
Facts:
Cesar Sampayan v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Crispulo Vasquez and Florencia Vasquez Gilsano, G.R. No. 156360, January 14, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Cesar Sampayan sought review under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated May 16, 2002 and its Resolution of November 7, 2002, which had denied his petition for review of the Regional Trial Court’s reversal of a Municipal Circuit Trial Court judgment in a forcible-entry case filed by siblings Crispulo Vasquez and Florencia Vasquez-Gilsano.On July 8, 1992 the private respondents filed a complaint for forcible entry in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bayugan and Sibagat, Agusan del Sur, alleging that their mother, Cristita Quita, owned and possessed Lot No. 1959 (PLS-225), that after her death the siblings became co-owners and possessors, and that on June 1, 1992 petitioner entered and occupied the lot by “strategy and stealth,” excluding them despite demands to vacate. Sampayan answered, denying plaintiffs’ possession and asserting he entered with permission from Maria Ybanez, overseer for the true owners (the Terrados), and asserting that possession had long been with successive vendees (the Oriol and Occida families) — facts he supported with tax declarations, deeds of sale, a deed of relinquishment, a protest with CENRO, and several affidavits.
During trial the plaintiffs offered a tax declaration in the name of Cristita Quita, her death certificate, a DENR certificate showing a miscellaneous sales application in her name, an affidavit by Emiliano Gatillo claiming he gave the lot to Cristita in 1957, and pleadings showing Cristita as an oppositor in Cadastral Case No. 149 (together with the cadastral decision). Sampayan offered documentary evidence of the Oriol/Occida transactions and affidavits (including Dionesia Noynay and Juliana Occida) asserting long possession by the vendees and the impossibility of plaintiffs’ possession.
On March 21, 1996 the MCTC judge conducted an ocular inspection of Lot No. 1959 and observed existing improvements (houses, coconut and caimito trees) and indicia that predecessors-in-interest of Sampayan or the vendees had introduced those improvements; the judge found no visible evidence that Cristita Quita or the plaintiffs had been in possession. The MCTC therefore dismissed the forcible-entry complaint for lack of merit.
The private respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch VII, which in a decision dated December 5, 1996 reversed the MCTC, giving weight to Cristita Quita’s appearance as an oppositor in Cadastral Case No. 149 and concluding she had prior actual possession. Sampayan filed a petition for review ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Municipal Circuit Trial Court have jurisdiction to entertain the forcible-entry complaint?
- Which party had prior actual physical possession of Lot No. 1959 at the time the forcible-entry complaint was filed — the private respondents (as the RTC and Court of Appeals held) or petitioner Sampa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)