Case Summary (G.R. No. 143173)
Procedural History
On May 25, 1995, the Ong spouses filed an action for forcible entry against respondent Parel before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila, claiming that Parel constructed unauthorized structures intruding onto their lot. The MTC ruled in favor of the Ong spouses on April 12, 1996, ordering the removal of the encroachments. Parel appealed this decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the case on October 3, 1996, asserting that the Ongs failed to prove prior physical possession. The Ong spouses’ subsequent petition for review to the Court of Appeals was denied on December 14, 1999.
Legal Framework
The applicable law for forcible entry actions is governed by Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which outlines that in such cases, the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession and unlawful deprivation by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners allege that respondent unlawfully entered and constructed structures on their lot without permission, thus committing dispossession by stealth. They contend that respondent's encroachments deprived them of their property rights. Respondent counters that the encroachments were made by her grandmother, Visitacion Beltran, prior to the Ong spouses acquiring their lot, and that these structures were therefore legally constructed with entitlement.
Findings of the Courts
The appellate court upheld the RTC's determination that the encroachments occurred prior to the Ongs gaining title to Lot No. 18 and were not executed through unlawful means. It concluded that since the structures existed when the Ong spouses became the owners, there was no basis for a forcible entry claim. Furthermore, the court noted that the Ongs only discovered the alleged encroachments after a survey, reinforcing that their assertion of dispossession lacked the necessary evidence of prior physical possession.
Legal Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals, determining that petitioners failed to establish that their prior physical possession was unlawfully interrupted. The encroachments were not made through stealth as there was no evidence showing how and when the entry onto Lot No. 18 occurred. Mo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 143173)
Case Background
- The petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated December 14, 1999.
- The case originated from a forcible entry action filed by petitioners Spouses Pedro and Veronica Ong against respondent Socorro Parel.
- The Ong spouses are the registered owners of Lot No. 18, Block 2 of the Rizal Park subdivision, covered by TCT No. 218597.
- They purchased the property in 1994 from Emilio Magbag and Norma B. Pascual.
- Lot No. 17, adjacent to Lot No. 18, is owned by Visitacion Beltran, the grandmother of respondent Socorro Parel.
Allegations and Proceedings
- On May 25, 1995, the Ong spouses filed a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 148332) against Parel, claiming that she constructed an overhang and hollow block wall that encroached on their property.
- They asserted that they discovered the encroachments on August 23, 1994, during a boundary resurvey and made demands for removal of the constructions until December 19, 1994.
- Parel denied the allegations, asserting that the structures existed since 1956 and were within her property’s boundary.
Trial Court Findings
- The Metropolitan Trial Court conducted an ocular inspection and appointed a Commissioner to assess the property.
- The Commissioner’s report confirmed that Parel's constructions encroached on the Ong spouses' property by a total of 4.29 square meters.
- On April 12, 1996, the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favo