Palajos vs. Abad

GORGONIO P. PALAJOS vs. JOSE MANALO E.
ABAD
GR NO. 205832 MARCH 07, 2022
HERNANDO, J.
Facts:
Manalo and siblings filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages against Palajos, along with
other individuals before the Metc of Quezon City. While the case was pending, plaintiffs filed a motion
to render judgment claiming that defendants therein either filed their answer beyond the reglementary
period or did not file any answer at all. MeTC granted plaintiffs' motion, except against Palajos whose
answer was admitted. Plaintiffs claimed that they are the registered owners of three adjacent and
contiguous parcels of land, with an aggregate area of 1,200 square meters, which they acquired from
their parents in 1999. Sometime in September or October 2001, they took actual possession of the
subject property and constructed a concrete perimeter fence around it.
Plaintiffs claimed that on the third week of January 2006, they discovered that defendants, by means of
force upon things, strategy and stealth and without their knowledge and consent, destroyed portions of
the perimeter fence, entered the subject property and constructed their houses thereon, depriving
plaintiffs of their possession. They made demands for the defendants to vacate but they failed and
refused. Also, the barangay conciliation
Palajos claimed that he acquired the land through a deed of absolute sale executed by B.C Regalado &
Co. on May 4, 1988. Furthermore, he averred that: (i) he paid real property taxes as evidenced by
receipt of payment on February 17, 2005 and January 21, 2006; ii) he possesses proofs of billing of his
Bayantel telephone which he had installed in his residence in the year 2004; and (iii) he was able to
procure a Commission on Elections (COMELEC) registration application of his son, Ronald C. Palajos.
MeTC: The plaintiffs had prior physical possession of the property since they constructed a concrete
perimeter fence sometime in September to October 2001.
RTC: Plaintiffs (MANALO et.al) faied to prove prior actual physical possession.
CA: Reverse the RTC ruling
ISSUES:
Whether or not Manolo proved his prior physical possession of the subject property entitles him
to recover in an ejectment suit of forcible entry?
RULING:
Yes. Manalo has prior physical possession over the subject property and filing of a case of
forcible entry is proper.
As a rule, "possession" in forcible entry cases refers to prior physical possession or possession de
facto, not possession de Jure or that arising from ownership. Title is not an issue. As an exception,
Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that the issue of ownership shall be resolved in
deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is intertwined with the issue of ownership.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the issue of ownership of the property in forcible entry cases may be
provisionally determined and in order to determine the issue of possession and only if the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership. Moreover, "possession can be
acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of
one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right."
Thus, the three elements that must be alleged and proved for a forcible entry suit to prosper are
the following:
(a) plaintiff had prior physical possession of the property before the defendant encroached on the
property;
(b) plaintiff was deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth by
defendant; and
( c) that the action was filed within one (1) year from the time the plaintiff learned of his deprivation of
the physical possession of the property, except that when the entry is through stealth, the one (1 )-year
period is counted from the time the plaintiff-owner or legal possessor learned of the deprivation of the
physical possession of the property.
In the instant case, both the MeTC and the CA correctly found that Manolo and his siblings were
able to establish that they are the registered owners of the subject property which they acquired from
their parents in 1999. Although they did not immediately put the same to active use, but viewed in the
light of the foregoing juridical acts, Manolo had been occupying the land since 1999. On the other hand,
Palajos claims that his right to enter Lot No. 5 of the subject property was by virtue of a May 4, 1988
Deed of Absolute Sale which B.C. Regalado & Co. executed in his favor is in conflict with his other claim
that he subject premises is part of the Intestate Estate of the late Don Hermogenes and Antonio
Rodriguez and that the administrator of the Estate assigned it to him on February 26, 1991 and on
November 7, 2006, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in his favor by the administrator of the
Estate.
Therefore, Manolo and siblings sometime in September or October 2001 took actual possession
of the subject property and constructed a concrete perimeter fence around it which is earlier as to the
claim of Palajos that he has prior possession evidenced by the payment of real property taxes on
February 17, 2005 and January 21, 2006, or proofs of billing of his Bayantel telephone which he had
installed in his residence in the year 2004, or that he was able to procure a COMELEC registration
application of his son on October 24, 2003. These are only incidents that occurred after Manolo took
possession of the subject property. Thus, Manolo had prior physical possession of the subject property.
As to Prescriptive period: filed within one year from the time Manolo and his sibling discovered the
clandestine entry of the defendants on the third week of January while the complaint was filed on
February 23, 2006. Entry in the premises of the subject property without the consent and knowledge of
the registered owner, clearly falls under stealth, which is defined as "any secret, sly or clandestine act to
avoid discovery and to gain entrance into, or to remain within [the] residence of another without
permission. "

Palajos vs. Abad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palajos vs. Abad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palajos vs. Abad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GORGONIO P. PALAJOS vs. JOSE MANALO E.

GR NO. 205832 MARCH 07, 2022

CA: Reverse the RTC ruling

You might also like