GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. V COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are owners of the land situated in sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal (the land being disputed in the case at bar.) The spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management Services to develop their property. They have already acquired the proper permits to do so but they discovered that the land was occupied by the respondent with 20 other farmers (members of the Concerned of Farmer’s Association.) These farmers have occupied the land for the last twelve to fifteen years prior to the issuance of the permits and they already have their crops all over the property. In short, they are in actual possession of the land.
Petitioners tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and; demolish and bulldoze their crops and property. The respondents filed in CFI because they were deprived of their property without due process of law by trespassing, demolishing and bulldozing their crops and property situated in the land. CFI and RTC denied it but CA reversed the decision. Petitioners tried to appeal the decision in CA but were denied thus this appeal
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are entitled to file a forcible entry case against petitioner?
RULING:
YES, they are entitled to file a forcible entry case! Since private respondents were in actual possession of the property at the time they were forcibly ejected by petitioner, private respondents have a right to commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the legality or illegality of possession.
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, only actual possession. It is undisputed that private respondents were in possession of the property and not the petitioners nor the spouses Jose. Although the petitioners have a valid claim over ownership this does not in any way justify their act of ―forcible entry.‖ It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property the party in 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.Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The doctrine of self help, which the petitioners were using to justify their actions, are not applicable in the case because it can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession which is absent in the case at bar (in fact they are the ones who are threatening to remove the respondents with the use of force.) Article 536 basically tells us that the owner or a person who has a better right over the land must resort to judicial means to recover the property from another person who possesses the land.
When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of property. As clearly stated in Article 536- ―In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court, if holder should refuse to deliver the thing.‖
