FACTS:

Cabalag  and  her  husband  cultivated  a  parcel  of  land  in  Hacienda  Palico, which was owned by Roxas y Cia.  Caisip is the overseer of the land.  The land  cultivated  was  previously  tenanted  by  the  father  of  Cabalag.    On  a relevant date, Guevarra sought recognition as a lawful tenant from the CAR but  such  was  dismissed  as  it  was  held  that  he  wasn’t  a  tenant  thereof.  Thereafter, Roxas filed a case for forcible entry against Guevarra, on which he  won  and  the  court  ordered  Guevarra  to  vacate  the  lot.    Meanwhile, there  was  an  altercation  between  Cabalag  and  Caisip  over  the  cutting  of sugar  cane.    She  was  being  asked  to  leave  by  Caisip  but  she  refused.  Thereafter,  she  was  charged  with  grave  coercion.    When  she  was  again seen in the Hacienda and weeding, she was forcibly dragged by policemen and Caisip.  This prompted for the filing a case for grave coercion.
 

HELD:

Article 429 is inapplicable to the case at bar.  The complainant didn’t usurp or invade said lot.  She had merely remained in possession thereof, even though the hacienda owner may have become its co-possessor.  Appellants didn’t repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or  usurpation  of  the  property.    They  expelled  the  complainant  from  a property on which she and her husband were in possession even before the action for forcible entry was filed against them.