Case Summary (G.R. No. 176995)
Subject Property and Core Factual Allegations
The dispute concerns Lot 741‑B‑1 (30,000 sq. m.). Respondent alleges he purchased the lot from the spouses Acaylar by Deed of Sale executed 14 September 2004 and took immediate possession; petitioner allegedly entered the lot on 19 September 2004 by strategy, intimidation, threats and stealth, cut grasses, gathered coconuts and pastured animals. Petitioner contends the sold parcel formed part of his parents’ larger property (59,775 sq. m.), that he has possessed the property since 1979 as administrator, built his house thereon and farmed it, and that the sold portion was not clearly delineated.
Procedural History Through the Lower Courts
Respondent filed a forcible entry complaint in the MTCC (Civil Case No. 622). The MTCC, relying in part on an affidavit by Zoila Acaylar denying any designation of petitioner as administrator and attesting to the sale, found respondent lawful possessor and ordered petitioner and those claiming under him to vacate Lot 741‑B‑1. The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision. Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45), which the CA dismissed on procedural grounds and later denied reconsideration; petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Petitioner's and Respondent's Principal Contentions
Petitioner argued he had prior, peaceful, physical possession since 1979 and that the RTC erred in regarding respondent as prior possessor merely because of the Deed of Sale; he also relied on a later affidavit by Zoila (which recanted parts of her first affidavit). Respondent maintained he lawfully purchased and took possession on 14 September 2004 and was thereafter ousted by petitioner; he relied on Zoila’s first affidavit and the Deed of Sale.
Court of Appeals’ Grounds for Dismissal Reviewed
The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal largely because the petitioner invoked the wrong appellate remedy (a Rule 45 petition instead of a Rule 42 petition to review an RTC decision rendered in its appellate capacity). The CA also noted several technical defects: a shortfall in docket fees, omission of material dates and certain required content in the petition, failure to indicate full counsel particulars, and failure to furnish a copy of the petition to the RTC.
Supreme Court’s Approach to the Procedural Defects
The Supreme Court reviewed the procedural lapses and considered them excusable. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of dismissal for unpaid fees (Rule 141, Sec. 5) and recognized precedent excusing omissions of material dates where such dates were apparent from the record (citing Great Southern Maritime Services Corp. and related decisions). The Court found petitioner had remedied or explained some deficiencies and that the ends of justice required resolution on the merits rather than disposal on technicalities.
Legal Framework: Forcible Entry versus Unlawful Detainer
The Court reiterated Section 1, Rule 70 distinctions: forcible entry is an action to recover possession from a party whose occupation was illegal from the outset (entry by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth) and requires proof that the plaintiff was in prior physical possession; unlawful detainer addresses a party whose possession was inceptively lawful (by contract) but became unlawful after termination of that right and requires a prior demand to vacate (a jurisdictional requirement).
Core Factual Issue: Who Had Prior Physical Possession?
Because the remedies and their requisites depend on whether petitioner had prior physical possession, the Court resolved the conflicting factual findings of the courts below. After re‑examining the record, the Supreme Court concluded that petitioner had been in actual physical possession of the disputed parcel prior to and at the time of the sale to respondent: petitioner entered possession as early as 1979, built his house and farmed the land, and respondent did not rebut this with clear and convincing proof of an uninterrupted, demonstrable possession by respondent from the time of sale.
Relevance of the Deed of Sale to Possession Questions
The Court explained that the Deed of Sale and consequent transfer of ownership do not automatically vest physical possession. In an ejectment context the dispositive question is de facto p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176995)
Procedural Posture
- The case reached the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Pablo D. Acaylar, Jr., seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated 28 July 2006 and 30 January 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 01077-MIN.
- The Court of Appeals had dismissed petitioner’s petition on technical grounds and thereby affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, Branch 9, Decision dated 20 January 2006 in Civil Case No. 6087, which itself affirmed the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Dapitan City Decision dated 28 March 2005 in Civil Case No. 622.
- The MTCC had awarded possession of the subject property to respondent Danilo G. Harayo on the ground that he was the lawful possessor; the RTC affirmed that decision; the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal for procedural defects and wrong remedy; the Supreme Court was asked to review those rulings.
Parties and Subject Property
- Petitioner: Pablo D. Acaylar, Jr., son of spouses Pablo Acaylar, Sr. and Zoila Dangcalan Acaylar.
- Respondent: Danilo G. Harayo.
- Subject property: Lot 741-B-1, Sketch Plan, situated at Tolon, Potungan, Dapitan City, containing an area of 30,000 square meters, bounded on the north by Tolon River, on the south by Lot 741-A, on the east by Lot 741-B-2, and on the west by the municipal road; embraced in OCT No. (P-14969)-1119.
Factual Background and Timeline
- On 14 September 2004 spouses Pablo Acaylar, Sr. and Zoila Dangcalan Acaylar executed a Deed of Sale to respondent Danilo G. Harayo for the subject property; respondent allegedly took possession the same day.
- On 19 September 2004, petitioner allegedly entered the subject property by means described in the complaint as strategy, intimidation, threats and stealth; petitioner cut tall grasses, gathered fallen coconuts and fruits, and pastured cows and other animals.
- Petitioner asserted long prior possession of his parents’ entire property (total area 59,775 square meters) since 1979, having built his house thereon and acting as administrator; petitioner contended the portion allegedly sold was not clearly delineated.
- Petitioner and his sisters concurrently filed a separate civil case in the RTC, Branch 6, seeking annulment of the Deed of Sale dated 14 September 2004 with prayer for preliminary injunction and damages; that annulment case remained pending.
- At pre-trial before the MTCC on 17 February 2005 the parties stipulated that the spouses Acaylar sold only a 30,000-square-meter portion and that a civil case was pending in the RTC on the validity of that sale.
Claims, Defenses, and Evidentiary Record
- Respondent’s claim: filed an action for forcible entry before the MTCC (Civil Case No. 622) alleging he took immediate possession after the Deed of Sale and was then ousted by petitioner.
- Petitioner’s defense: asserted prior possession since 1979 as administrator; argued respondent could not identify the precise portion bought; contended his possession predated respondent’s and was therefore lawful.
- Key documentary evidence: Zoila Acaylar’s First Affidavit (submitted by respondent) attesting that she sold the subject property to respondent, denying she authorized petitioner to administer or remain on the property; a Second Affidavit later executed by Zoila in which she recanted statements in the First Affidavit.
- Procedural filings: petitioner moved for reconsideration of the RTC decision relying on the Second Affidavit; petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 01077-MIN), which the CA dismissed for procedural defects and for being the wrong remedy (should have been Rule 42).
MTCC Decision (28 March 2005)
- The MTCC credited respondent’s version and Zoila Acaylar’s First Affidavit, finding respondent took possession after purchase and was ousted by petitioner who claimed authority as administrator.
- The MTCC concluded petitioner had no legal right to remain and adjudged petitioner’s possession illegal.
- Dispositive orders: (1) ordered petitioner and those deriving rights from him to vacate Lot 741-B-1 (30,000 sq. m.) and turn over peaceful possession to respondent; (2) ordered petitioner to pay P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P1,591.25 as costs; all other claims and counterclaims dismissed for lack of merit.
RTC Decision (20 January 2006) and Subsequent RTC Resolution
- On appeal (Civil Case No. 6087), the RTC affirmed the MTCC Decision, finding the sale vested ownership and possession in respondent and that petitioner’s acts (entering, cutting grasses, gathering produce) constituted forcible entry, justifying ejectment.
- The RTC explicitly found respondent in physical possession on 14 September 2004 and petitioner only entering on 19 September 2004.
- Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC, based on Zoila Acaylar’s Second Affidavit (recantation), was denied by RTC Resolution dated 18 April 2006.