FACTS:

Spouses  Jose  issued  a  power  of  attorney  in  favor  of  petitioner  for  the development of their parcel of land into a subdivision.  Private respondents were  occupying  the  land  and  petitioner  advised  them  to  vacate  but  they
refused.      Thereafter,   petitioner   continued   their   development   and construction.    Respondents  then  filed  a  case  for  forcible  entry.    The  trial court dismissed the complaint and this was reversed by the CA.   
 

HELD:

Notwithstanding  petitioner’s  claim  that  it  was  duly  authorized  by  the owners  to  develop  the  subject  property,  private  respondents  as  actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner because ownership is not in issue.  Forcible entry is merely a quieting process, and never determines the actual title to an estate.  Title is not involved.   
 
Although  admittedly  petitioner  may  validly  claim  ownership  based  on  the muniment of title it presented, such evidence doesn’t responsively address the issue of prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case.  It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of title to the property, the party in a peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror.  Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.  Whatver may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in favor priority in time, he
has security that entitles him to remain on the property until he has been lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.