Case Digest (G.R. No. 224549)
Facts:
In September 1995 Respondent Josefina R. Pangilinan acquired by Waiver of Rights an unregistered 5.78-hectare lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 0056 from her aunt, Felomina Abid, while Abid had earlier executed a Deed of Sale to Columbino Alvarez covering the same land; Alvarez later acknowledged that the 5.78-hectare lot belonged to respondent. In August 2005 Petitioners Spouses Janet Uri Fahrenbach and Dirk Fahrenbach occupied and built on the lot, prompting respondent to file a forcible entry complaint; the MCTC dismissed respondent, the RTC reversed and ordered petitioners to vacate, pay monthly rent and attorney’s fees, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with remand to determine proper monthly rentals.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that Respondent was in prior possession of the subject lot?
Ruling:
The petition was denied. The Court affirmed the Decision dated September 21, 2015 and the Resolution dated April 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, upholding that Respondent had prior possession of the subject lot, sustaining the award of attorney’s fees, and remanding to the RTC to determine the proper amount of monthly rentals.
Ratio:
The Court found that the contested land was the 5.78-hectare lot under Tax Declaration No. 0056 and that Respondent proved prior possession de facto by occasional visits, payment of realty taxes, request for survey authority, and photographs, while Petitioners only began occupying in August 2005; therefore prior physical possession favored respondent. The Court rejected tacking because tacking pertains to possession de jure and not to physical possession in forcible entry suits, and it held that the CENRO and Municipal Assessor reports pertained to the Alvarez–respondent ownership conflict and did not establish petitioners’ prior physical possession. The CA correctly remanded the rent award because the RTC cited no evidence of assessment or prevailing rental rates, while the grant of attorney’s fees was supported by Article 2208 of the Civil Code and Sec. 17, Rule 70.
Doctrine:
- In forcible entry suits the sole issue is prior physical possession, i.e., *possession de facto*, regardless of ownership claims.
- (Get Pro to unlock 2 more doctrines)