G.R. No. 158877 ; June 16, 2009
JOVEN DE GRANO, represented by Venus P. de Grano, Ernesto H. Malabanan, and Simplicia D. Malabanan, Petitioner, vs. GREGORIO LACABA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Gregorio Lacaba filed a forcible entry complaint against petitioner Joven de Grano, alleging he had been in physical possession of two lots for over 30 years through caretakers and other occupants. He claimed that in May 2000, petitioner, by force and intimidation, destroyed his perimeter fence, cleared the land, and demolished a house, thereby disrupting his peaceful possession. Respondent supported his claim with tax declarations and barangay certifications. Petitioner countered that the property was owned and possessed by the Malabanan family, evidenced by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), and that he was merely clearing the land upon their instruction, presenting a cancelled relocation survey plan and affidavits from occupants denying respondent’s possession.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding respondent’s claim of possession unsubstantiated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated March 28, 2001. Later, the RTC issued a corrective resolution on October 23, 2001. Respondent then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was granted, reversing the lower courts’ decisions. The CA ruled that respondent had established prior physical possession, making the issue of ownership irrelevant for forcible entry purposes.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower courts’ dismissal of the forcible entry case.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA decision. The Court held that the CA gravely erred in its appreciation of the facts and the applicable law in ejectment cases. In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession of the property and that he was deprived thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. The sole issue is physical possession, independent of any claim of ownership. However, the plaintiff must still substantiate his claim of prior physical possession by competent evidence.
The Court found that respondent Lacaba failed to discharge this burden. His claim of possession through caretakers and other occupants was not supported by any credible, corroborative evidence. The tax declarations and barangay certifications he presented only pertained to claims of ownership or tax liability, not to actual prior physical possession. In contrast, petitioner De Grano presented a TCT and affidavits from actual occupants attesting to possession by the Malabanan family. The MCTC and RTC, as triers of fact, found respondent’s evidence insufficient to prove prior possession. The CA overstepped its bounds by re-evaluating these factual findings, which are generally conclusive in a Rule 45 petition. Since respondent failed to prove the foundational element of prior physical possession, his forcible entry action must fail.