G.R. No. L-26959 - Co vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26959)

Factual Background

The petitioners acquired Lot No. 18, Block 2 of Rizal Park subdivision in Sta. Cruz, Manila, covered by TCT No. 218597, from the spouses Emilio Magbag and Norma B. Pascual in 1994. Adjacent to Lot No. 18 is Lot No. 17, covered by TCT No. 125063, registered in the name of Visitacion Beltran, the grandmother of respondent Socorro Parel. The petition alleged that respondent, by strategy and stealth, constructed an overhang and a hollow block and adobe wall along the common boundary that extended beyond Lot No. 17 and into petitioners’ Lot No. 18, thereby depriving petitioners of possession of that portion. Petitioners averred discovery of the encroachment on August 23, 1994 upon a resurvey and alleged demands to vacate, the last dated December 19, 1994. Respondent denied these allegations and asserted the improvements existed since 1956 and lay within Lot No. 17.

Metropolitan Trial Court Proceedings

The parties sought and obtained an ocular inspection. The MTC designated the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner, and respondent engaged Geodetic Engineer Mariano V. Flotildes to perform a relocation survey on November 28, 1995 in the presence of both parties. The Commissioner reported that the defendant’s wall protruded 112 meters into plaintiffs’ property and that a window sill overhung by about 12 meter deep into plaintiffs’ premises and that the eaves extended into plaintiffs’ premises. The Geodetic Engineer’s Report confirmed encroachments quantified as 2.7 sq. m. for the house and 1.59 sq. m. for the adobe and hollow block wall, totaling 4.29 sq. m., more or less. On April 12, 1996, the MTC rendered judgment for the petitioners ordering removal of the overhang and adobe block wall, surrender of possession, and payment of PHP 10,000 as attorney’s fees plus costs.

Regional Trial Court Proceedings

Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which on October 3, 1996 reversed and set aside the MTC judgment and dismissed the case for failure of petitioners to prove prior physical possession of the disputed portion. The RTC found that petitioners discovered the alleged encroachment only after the August 23, 1994 resurvey and that the questioned improvements were made by the late Visitacion Beltran when she owned both lots or had the right to introduce the improvements. The RTC concluded that petitioners failed to show forcible entry by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and that the dispute was essentially a boundary controversy beyond the summary jurisdiction of the MTC.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in a decision dated December 14, 1999, denied the petition and adopted the RTC’s findings. The CA observed that the action involved only a portion of Lot No. 18 and arose from a boundary controversy discovered by relocation survey. The CA held that petitioners failed to prove dispossession by stealth or other means contemplated by Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court, and that the controversy was not amenable to a summary ejectment remedy in the MTC. The CA denied reconsideration by resolution dated May 4, 2000.

Issues Presented on Petition for Review

The petitioners raised multiple assignments of error, framed as whether entry without knowledge or consent constitutes dispossession by stealth; whether strategy or stealth renders entry unlawful and whether de facto possession commences only upon demand; whether there is a distinction between forcible entry by stealth and forcible entry by force, intimidation or threat; whether petitioners may invoke precedents in unlawful detainer cases; whether respondent was the authorized party given alleged co-ownership; whether bad-faith possession was inherited by respondent; and whether the CA decision rested on speculation or misapprehension of facts.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners primarily contended that respondent committed dispossession by stealth when she constructed improvements that encroached upon Lot No. 18 without consent or a bona fide claim. They argued that such entering or constructing without permission equated to unlawful dispossession justifying an action for forcible entry under Rule 70. Petitioners further argued that, notwithstanding denominational labels, their complaint pleaded facts sufficient to sustain a remedy akin to unlawful detainer.

Respondent’s Position and Trial Findings

Respondent maintained that the improvements predated petitioners’ ownership and had existed since 1956 when Visitacion Beltran owned the property. In her affidavit respondent affirmed that the window sill overhang and old adobe wall were constructed as early as 1956 and that maintenance of the private alley and encumbrances on the title to Lot No. 18 accompanied petitioners’ purchase. The trial courts credited these averments and noted petitioners did not controvert the contention that the improvements were introduced when the late Beltran was the registered owner of both lots. The RTC therefore found petitioners were never in prior physical possession of the disputed portion.

Legal Analysis and Supreme Court Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed the governing rule that Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court requires the plaintiff in a forcible entry action to have been in prior physical possession and to have been deprived of that possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, within one year from the unlawful deprivation. The Court reiterated that where entry was by stealth the one-year period is counted from discovery, citing Elane v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80638, April 26, 1989. The Court stated that if dispossession did not occur by means enumerated in Rule 70, the proper r

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-26959)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Spouses Pedro Ong and Veronica Ong filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 14, 1999 and its May 4, 2000 resolution denying reconsideration.
Respondent Socorro Parel was the defendant in the forcible entry action filed by the Ong spouses in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15.
The Metropolitan Trial Court rendered judgment for the Ong spouses on April 12, 1996, which ordered removal of encroachments and awarded attorney’s fees.
The Regional Trial Court reversed and dismissed the case on October 3, 1996 for failure of the Ong spouses to prove prior physical possession.
The Court of Appeals denied the Ong spouses’ petition for review and the Supreme Court resolved the present petition on March 28, 2001 under G.R. No. 143173.

Key Factual Allegations

Spouses Pedro and Veronica Ong purchased Lot No. 18 covered by TCT No. 218597 in 1994 from the spouses Emilio Magbag and Norma B. Pascual.
Adjacent to Lot No. 18 was Lot No. 17 of about 109 square meters covered by TCT No. 125063 registered in the name of Visitacion Beltran, the grandmother of Socorro Parel.
The Ong spouses alleged that Parel constructed an overhang and a hollow block wall beyond Lot No. 17 and within Lot No. 18 by strategy and stealth, thereby depriving them of possession of the encroached portion.
The Ong spouses discovered the alleged encroachment only after a relocation survey on August 23, 1994 and they alleged the last demand to vacate occurred on December 19, 1994.
The court-appointed Commissioner reported protrusion of the wall and eaves into Lot No. 18, and Geodetic Engr. Mariano V. Flotildes’s report quantified an encroachment of 2.7 sq. m. for the house, 1.59 sq. m. for the adobe and hollow block wall, totaling 4.29 sq. m., more or less.
Parel averred that the contested structures dated as early as 1956 and were introduced when Visitacion Beltran owned both lots.

Proceedings Below

The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 15 granted the Ong spouses’ complaint and ordered removal of the encroachments and payment of Ten Thousand Pesos as attorney’s fees.
The Regional Trial Court, in Civil Case No. 96-78666, reversed and set aside the MTC decision and dismissed the case for failure to prove prior physical possession.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 45034, denied the Ong spouses’ petition for review and affirmed the RTC’s findings on December 14, 1999.
The Ong spouses’ motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied in a resolution dated May 4, 2000.

Issues Presented

Whether gaining entry without the knowledge or consent of the owner and remaining therein without permission constitutes dispossession by strategy or stealth.
Whether entry secured by strategy or stealth becomes unlawful and whether de facto possession commences only upon demand.
Whether there is a legal distinction between forcible entry by strategy or stealth and forcible entry by force, intimidation, or threat.
Whether the Ong spouses could properly invoke Supreme Court rulings in unlawful detainer cases to support their cause.
Whether Parel was the proper party to be sued in view of co-ownership and historical possession.
Whether the character of possession acquired in bad faith was inherited by Parel and remained unchanged.
Whether the Court of Appeals decision rested on speculation, surmise, conjecture, or misapprehension of facts.

Statutory Framework

Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court requires that an ac