A land dispute involves ownership or possession. No one can take the law in one’s hand. While the owner has the right to enjoy his property, he must pursue legal action against the holder or possessor to recover his property [Article 428, new Civil Code]. On the other hand, every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession and if he be disturbed, he may avail the legal remedies to recover or restore his possession [Article 539, new Civil Code]. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects. Instead, he must go to court [Article 536, new Civil Code]. Ejectment is the remedy to get possession; either unlawful detainer [when there is lease or tolerated possession] or forcible entry [when entry on realty is thru force, intimidation, strategy or stealth].
By its very nature, the only issue in ejectment case is who has the better right of possession. While one may later be proven to have right of possession by virtue of ownership, he must still file an ejectment case to dispossess actual occupant who refuses to vacate the property.
As between a titled owner and a long time occupant, who has better right of possession? This was the issue in Magsi v. Heirs of Lopez, G.R. No. 262034, 22 May 2024. In this case, in 1969, the government passed a law granting the National Government the authority to sell cottages in Baguio City. In 1981, Magsi occupied, applied and was awarded Lot No. 50 by the government. In 1993, she built a residential house. In 2016, one of the heirs of Lopez threatened her children occupying the property of demolition. While on vacation, the heirs of Lopez enclosed and blocked the access to the property. In 2017, Magsi filed an action for forcible entry against the heirs of Lopez, who answered that while Magsi own Lot 50, but her house occupied the portion of Lot 49, which was titled to them in 2004. The MTCC [Municipal Trial Court in Cities] ruled in favor of Magsi and ordered the heirs of Lopez to surrender possession. The RTC [Regional Trial Court] affirmed the MTCC. But, the CA [Court of Appeals] reversed the RTC and dismissed the forcible entry case for lack of merit since Lopez heirs have a better right over the real property being the holder of a land title over Lot 49. While Magsi proved she had prior physical possession, her property is on the portion of the property titled to Lopez, who had constructive possession. Magsi appealed.
Our Supreme Court ruled that an action for forcible entry is governed by Section 1, Rule 70, Revised Rules of Court. To prosper the following elements must be alleged and proved: [1] plaintiff had prior physical possession of the property; [2] plaintiff was deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and [3] the suit was filed within one year from the time the owner or legal possessor learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property. The main point of contention is whether Magsi was able to prove that she had prior physical possession over the subject property.
It is undisputed that Magsi occupied and built her residence on Lot 50 in 1991. The parties agreed at MTCC that property encroached upon Lot 49, which was titled to Lopez only in 2004. Magsi had prior physical possession since 1991. In forcible entry cases, the only issue is the prior material possession [possession de facto] of real property and not ownership [possession de jure]. Thus, courts should base their decision on who had a prior physical possession of the property under litigation. Moreover, it must be stressed that Magsi, though not the registered owner of Lot 49, cannot be ousted by force from her property which encroaches upon Lot 49. It was ruled that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror, not even by the owners. The real owners of the subject property had no right to take the law into their own hands and summarily/forcibly eject the occupants. Their use of illegal means to eject by force the occupants by enclosing the property, blocking access thereto and prohibiting them to enter made them liable for forcible entry because prior possession was established by Magsi. Notwithstanding the actual condition of the title to the realty, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror – not even by the owners. Verily, even if petitioners [Magsi] were mere usurpers of the land owned by respondents [heirs of Lopez], still they are entitled to remain on the property until they are lawfully ejected therefrom. Thus, our Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the MTCC ruling.
