Title
Abad vs. Farrales-Villamayor
Case
G.R. No. 178635
Decision Date
Apr 11, 2011
Abad purchased property, leased it to Teresita, who abandoned it. Oscar and Daisy forcibly entered, claiming possession since 1967. Courts ruled Abad failed to prove prior physical possession, a jurisdictional requirement for forcible entry. SC affirmed CA, dismissing Abad's complaint.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222523)

Jurisdictional Allegations

In filings, Abad asserted that he and his wife leased the property back to Teresita post-purchase, expecting her to manage the boarding house business. However, after Teresita suddenly abandoned the property, the Abads encountered resistance from Oscar and Daisy, who contended that they were rightful occupants of the property based on inheritance and claimed lifelong possession dating back to 1967.

Court Proceedings and Claims

On March 10, 2003, the Abads filed a complaint for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. Oscar and Daisy denied forcibly taking possession and stated that their familial ties to the deceased owner entitled them to the property. The MeTC ruled in favor of the Abads, establishing that they, as registered owners, were entitled to possession of the property.

Regional Trial Court Findings

Oscar and Daisy appealed the MeTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which upheld the MeTC's ruling, asserting that the jurisdictional requirements for forcible entry were met since the Abads were presumed to have prior possession based on their ownership.

Court of Appeals Decision

Subsequent to that, a petition was filed with the Court of Appeals, which found that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over the case. The Court emphasized that the Abads failed to establish prior physical possession, which is a necessary element in forcible entry actions. The CA asserted that the Abads merely alleged ownership without proving prior possession, leading to the annulment of both the MeTC and RTC decisions.

Legal Standards for Forcible Entry

The Court highlighted that two crucial allegations need to be demonstrated in forcible entry cases: first, the plaintiff's prior physical possession of the property, and second, the defendant's forced removal of that possession. The ruling observed that while Abad claimed a right to possession based on ownership, it did not equate to actual prior physical possession, which is vital to meet jurisdictional requirements.

Rebuttal to Petitioner’s Arguments

Abad attempted to argue that his leasing out of the property after purchase constituted prior possession. However, the evidence from Oscar and Daisy substantiated their claims of prior physical o

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.