Title
Supreme Court
Ruiz vs. Armada
Case
G.R. No. 232849
Decision Date
Jun 14, 2021
Petitioner Lourdes Ruiz claimed prior possession of Magalawa Island, alleging respondents forcibly occupied portions of her titled property. SC upheld her claim for Lot 1 but excluded other lots not covered in her complaint.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232849)

Background of the Dispute

On February 9, 2009, the petitioner filed a Complaint for forcible entry and injunction against the respondents after they allegedly entered her property forcibly on December 12, 2008, engaging in activities such as cutting down trees and constructing structures without her permission. The respondents denied these claims, asserting that Reynaldo Armada occupied part of the property belonging to his deceased father.

Municipal Circuit Trial Court Decision

The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioner on December 10, 2012, supporting her claim of prior possession based on evidence from an official geodetic engineer's report, demonstrating the areas occupied by the respondents on the petitioner’s land.

Regional Trial Court Decision

The RTC reversed the MCTC decision on July 8, 2013, concluding that the MCTC made an error in including Lots 2, 3, and 2813 in its award to the petitioner, as these were not part of TCT No. T-54730. The RTC found insufficient evidence regarding the petitioner’s actual possession of Lot 1, stating that her claims were based on ownership rather than actual physical possession.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On September 6, 2016, the CA upheld the RTC's ruling, emphasizing that in forcible entry cases, the crucial element is prior physical possession. The CA noted that the petitioner failed to substantiate her caretaker's alleged management of the property and criticized the absence of evidence demonstrating actual possession.

Petitioner's Argument

The petitioner subsequently appealed, insisting that her ownership of the property afforded her presumptive prior possession, which should have been recognized despite the findings of the lower courts. She argued that jurisdictional precedence supports the notion that a Torrens title constitutes proof of prior possession.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner’s appeal, determining that issues of prior possession constituted factual matters warranting deeper review due to conflicting findings among the lower courts. It reaffirmed that prior physical possession is a key element in forcible entry claims and recognized the necessity of considering support from tax declarations dating back longer than the respondents’ claims as evidence of prior possession.

Findings on Prior Possession

The Supreme Court's analysis concluded that the petitioner had indeed demonstrated convincing evidence of prior physical possession of the disputed land prior to the respondents' entry. The Court noted that the petitioner’s complaint was filed within the prescribed one-year limit following the alleged unlawful entry, thereby

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.