G.R. No. 176995
July 30, 2008
Facts:
Harayo bought a parcel of land designated
as Lot 741-B-1 situated in Tolon, Potungan, Dapitan City,
with an area of 30,000 square meters from spouses Pablo Acaylar, Sr., and Zoila
Dangcalan Acaylar. Harayo alleged that he acquired the subject property by
virtue of the Deed of Sale executed on September 14, 2004 by the spouses
Acaylar and on the same day he acquired possession of the subject property. On September
19, 2004, one of the spouses Acaylar’s sons, the Acaylar Jr., using strategy,
intimidation, threats and stealth, entered the subject property, cut the tall
grasses in the coconut plantation therein, gathered the fallen coconuts and
other fruits, and pastured his cows and other animals thereon.
In Acaylar Jr.’s answer, he countered that the subject
property claimed by respondent is a portion of the entire property owned by his
parents, the spouses Acaylar, with a total area of 59,775 square
meters. Acaylar Jr. is in possession of his parents’ entire property
since 1979 as administrator thereof. He built his house on the
property and farmed the land. Respondent cannot definitively claim
which portion of the entire property he was able to buy from the spouses
Acaylar since the same was not clearly delineated.
Among the pieces of evidence presented by Harayo before
the MTCC was an Affidavit of Zoila Acaylar (First Affidavit) attesting that she
sold the subject property to respondent for consideration and she did not give
petitioner authority to either administer or remain on her and her husband’s
property.
After trial, the MTCC rendered a Decision on March 28,
2005, awarding to Harayo the possession of the subject property. The
MTCC gave credence to Harayo’s claim that he took immediate
possession of the subject property after the execution of the Deed of Sale but
was ousted therefrom by Acaylar Jr. who invoked the alleged authority granted
to him by Zoila Acaylar as the administrator of the unsold portion of her and
her husband’s property.
On Appeal, the RTC promulgated its
Decision dated January 20, 2006 affirming the award of possession in favor of respondent
after finding that the appealed MTCC Decision was based on facts and law on the
matter. The RTC declared
that the sale of the subject property by the spouses Acaylar to Harayo vested
ownership and possession of said property in the latter.
Banking on another Affidavit (Second Affidavit)
executed by Zoila Acaylar, in which she recanted the statements she made in her
First Affidavit denying that she designated petitioner as the administrator of
her and her husband’s property, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the
January 20, 2006 Decision of the RTC. The RTC, however, denied
Acaylar Jr.’s Motion for reconsideration in its issued Resolution dated April 18, 2006.
Consequently, Acaylar Jr. filed a Petition for Review
on Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
He argued in his Petition that the RTC gravely erred in ruling that respondent
was in prior possession of the subject property based solely on the Deed of
Sale executed by the spouses Acaylar in Harayo’s favor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Harayo had actual or physical
possession of the subject property which makes Acaylar Jr. an unlawful detainer
and his acts such as cutting the tall grasses in the subject property
constitute forcible entry.
RULING:
No. The SC is not
persuaded by Harayo’s assertion that after he took possession of the subject
property from the Acaylar spouses and Acaylar Jr. entered the subject property
on a whim, for not only does such postulation lack clear, positive, and
convincing evidentiary support, but also because it is illogical and contrary
to common human experience. A
person would not, for a reason so shallow as a whim, encroach upon another’s
property and gather fruits and other agricultural products therefrom, thereby
risking criminal prosecution and civil liabilities. The more plausible and logical
scenario would be that Acaylar Jr. was
already occupying the subject property prior to the sale. Acaylar Jr., in gathering the coconut
fruits and other crops, cutting grasses, and domesticating animals on the
subject property, even after its sale to Harayo on September
14, 2004, was only continuing to exercise acts of
possession over the subject property as he had done in years
before.
Both the MTCC and the RTC decided in favor of Harayo since they
considered him to have been vested with possession of the subject property by
virtue of the execution of the Deed of Sale on September 14, 2004. However,
such a ruling violates one of the most basic doctrines in resolving ejectment
cases. The SC had long
settled that the only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment
proceedings is - who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the
property, that is, possession de
facto; and they should not involve the
question of ownership or of possession de
jure, which is to be settled
in the proper court and in a proper action.
In conclusion, since
Acaylar Jr. was in prior physical possession of the subject property, Harayo has
no cause of action against him for forcible entry. Neither can we treat Harayo’s case
against Acaylar Jr. as one for unlawful
detainer absent the jurisdictional requirement of demand to vacate made upon Acaylar
Jr..
No comments:
Post a Comment