Title
Somodio vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 82680
Decision Date
Aug 15, 1994
Somodio proved prior possession of Lot No. 6328-X, entitling him to recover land from respondents who occupied it unlawfully.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 82680)

Respondents' Entry and Trial Court Findings

In June 1983, Purisima entered the land and erected a house; Ayco transferred his hut in October 1977. Somodio sued Ayco for unlawful detainer and Purisima for forcible entry; the Municipal Trial Court found Somodio the prior possessor, ordered respondents to vacate, and awarded attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court affirmed.

Court of Appeals Decision and Petition

The Court of Appeals set aside the trial courts’ rulings in September 1987, holding that Somodio had not “clearly and conclusively established physical, prior possession” of Lot 6328-X. Somodio’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting his Rule 45 petition.

Scope of Review and Factual Findings

This Court may re-examine conflicting appellate and trial court findings. Given the divergence between the trial courts (finding prior possession) and the Court of Appeals (finding insufficiency of proof), the Supreme Court undertook an independent review of the record.

Legal Standard on Prior Possession

In ejectment and forcible entry cases, the sole issue is the right to physical possession. A party with de facto prior possession is entitled to maintain it until lawfully ejected, regardless of ownership claims (Art. 531, Civil Code). Possession requires material occupation or subjecting the thing to one’s will.

Application of Possession Principles

Somodio’s planting of trees in 1974 and initiation of construction in 1976 constituted possession despite intermittent absence. Even if improvements began in 1981, they predated Purisima’s entry in 1983. Purisima’s claimed right derived from his father’s survey for a corporate client, not from personal possession or application for Lot 6328-X.

Lot Identification and Ocular Inspections

Purisima claimed Lot 6328-Y in his pleadings, while Somodio identified Lot 6328-X as the area of occupation. A geodetic engineer’s ocular inspection and the Municipal Trial Court’s site visit confirmed that resp

...continue reading

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