GR No. 123456, *Santos v. Reyes*, July 15, 2023

FACTS: Juan Santos filed a complaint for forcible entry against Maria Reyes before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, alleging that Reyes unlawfully deprived him of possession of a residential property by means of threat, intimidation, and strategy. Santos claimed he had been in prior physical possession of the property. The MeTC ruled in favor of Santos and ordered Reyes to vacate the property. Reyes appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MeTC decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground that Santos failed to prove his prior physical possession. Santos then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition, affirming the RTC’s dismissal. Santos now comes before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the complaint for forcible entry based on the alleged failure of the petitioner to prove prior physical possession.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The petition is denied.

In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) that he was in prior physical possession of the property; and (2) that he was deprived of such possession by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Prior physical possession is a substantive requirement, and without proof thereof, the action must fail. In this case, the factual findings of the MeTC, as reversed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, conclusively show that Santos failed to substantiate his claim of prior physical possession with clear and convincing evidence. His allegations were unsupported by any documentary evidence, such as tax receipts or utility bills in his name, or credible testimonial evidence demonstrating his actual occupation of the property before the alleged dispossession. Where the issue involves a question of fact, as in the determination of prior physical possession based on the evidence presented, the findings of the lower courts, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. Petitions under Rule 45 are limited to reviewing errors of law, not re-examining factual findings. Since no reversible error of law was committed by the CA, its decision is affirmed.