Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
xxx
xx
-versus-

Civil Case No. 2015-05-CV-01

Plaintiffs;
For:
FORCIBLE ENTRY

xx
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------------x

DECISION
The Preliminary Conference Order of this case was sent to the
parties on June 13, 2016. Pursuant to said order, plaintiffs filed their
Position Paper on July 4, 2016. The Court waited for the return of service
and the Position Paper of the defendants, yet, until now, the court has still
to receive them. Presumably, defendants have already received the said
order, yet opted to waive the submission of Position Paper, hence, this
judgment.
Plaintiffs allege that they are the absolute and registered owners of a
parcel of land, denominated as Lot-2346-A-9, located at Anibong, Tacloban
City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122-2010000182 and Tax
Declaration No. 02506573, still in the name of the previous owner, and
more particularly described as follows:
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122-2010000182
A parcel of land designated as Lot-2346-A-9 of the subdivision of Psd-08020598-D, being a portion of Lot-2346-A, (LRC) Psd-134295, situated at Brgy.
Anibong, Tacloban City, Province of Leyte, Island of Leyte. Bounded on the:
SE., along line
1-2 by
Lot 2346-A-8; on the
SW., along line
2-3 by Lot 2346-A-1; on the
NW., along line
3-4 by Barrio Road; and on the
NE., along line
4-1 by Lot 2346-A-14 (Road Lot, 5.00 m.),
Beginning at a point marked 1 on plan being N 39 deg. 26 E., 601.25 m.
from B.B.M. No. 18, Cad-220, Tacloban Cadastre.
Thence S 76 deg. 46 W., 19.40 m. to point 2;
Thence
N 26 deg. 28 W.,
26.63 m. to point 3;
Thence
N 76 deg. 41 E.,
19.54 m. to point 4;
Thence
S 26 deg. 10 E.,
26.63 m. to point of
beginning. Containing an area five hundred five (505) square meters

According to plaintiffs, they purchased the Subject Property from

Margaret Gray Anderson on November 5, 2009. Right after they purchased
it, they took possession therein. However, sometime on February 2015,
defendants, by force and intimidation, threat and strategy, and using their
Page 1 of 7

superiority in number, illegally entered the Subject Property and took

possession thereof. Defendants put up a temporary fence made of bamboo
and light materials around a larger area which included and enclosed the
subject property. Defendants are starting the construction of a nipa hut
made of light materials as shown by photographs thereof and a Subdivision
Plan of the subject property indicating its location and the portion that
defendants have illegally occupied.
Plaintiffs referred the matter to the Barangay authorities of Barangay
71 for conciliation and possible amicable settlement with defendants, but
no settlement was reached due to defendants refusal to vacate and
surrender the subject property to plaintiffs, as shown by a Certificate to File
Action.
Plaintiffs pray for judgment ordering the defendants to remove the
structure/s they have placed/constructed on the subject property, turn-over
and surrender the possession thereof to plaintiffs, and in addition, for
defendants to solidarily pay to plaintiffs a reasonable compensation for the
occupation of the property, attorneys fees, and litigation expenses.
On the other hand, defendants in their answer denied plaintiffs claims
and countered, that, defendants possession of the land in controversy
stems from their right as heirs of Julio de la Cruz, under whose title Bessie
Gray, purportedly derived her right of ownership over the property, and
consequently, her successors right to sell it to plaintiffs. Defendants
possession is evidenced by their being bonafide residents of Barangay 71,
Naga-Naga, Tacloban City, in the area subject of the controversy. They
have been residing in the place since their birth and had been in peaceable
possession of the land in controversy since the time of their mother and as
their mother put it, since the time of their grandfather, and their great
grandfather. To prove that point, defendants attached their Barangay
Residence Certificates, Community Tax Certificatesshowing their
residency at Barangay 71, Naga-Naga, Tacloban City, and Affidavits
confirming that defendants have been occupying the land since their births.
Defendants possession over the land in controversy was way ahead of
plaintiffs, and defendants possession has never been disturbed and has
always been peaceful and continuous.

The Courts Judgment

The Preliminary Conference Order shows the following:
1)
2)
3)

The defendants admit the existence and genuineness of TCT No. 1222010000182, page 10;
Tax Declaration No. 02506573 in the name of Margaret Gray Anderson
was admitted by defendants; and
That a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 5 November 2009 executed
between Margaret Gray Anderson thru her attorney-in-fact Harry Arthur
Gray and the plaintiffs was admitted.
Page 2 of 7

Plaintiffs presented testimonial and documentary exhibits as follows:

Exhibit/Marking
A
B
B-1
C
D
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11

D-12

D-13

D-14

Description
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122-2010000182, covering
Lot-2346-A-9, in the name of Plaintiffs; Records;
Tax Declaration No. 02506573, covering Lot-2346-A-9, in
the name of Margaret Gray- Anderson; Records;
Tax Declaration No. 2012-02-0025-05765, covering Lot
2346-A-9, in the name of Plaintiffs; Records;
Deed of Absolute Sale, dated November 5, 2009, executed
by Margaret Gray Anderson in favor of Plaintiffs, Records,
Photograph of an unfinished hut being constructed by
Defendants on the Subject Land; Records;
Photograph of sign and fence placed by Defendants on the
Subject Land; Records;
Photograph of wire fence and unfinished hut placed by
Defendants on the Subject Land; Records;
Photograph of sign, wire fence and unfinished hut placed
by Defendants on the Subject Land; Records
Photograph of sign, wire fence and unfinished hut placed
by Defendants on the Subject Land, taken from another
angle; Records;
Photograph of sign and fence placed by Defendants on the
Subject Land, taken from another angle; Records;
Photograph of wire fence, sign and unfinished hut/structure
placed by Defendants on the Subject Land; Records;
Photograph of hut being constructed by Defendants on the
Subject Land; Records;
Photograph of hut/structure being constructed by
Defendants on the Subject Land, taken from another
angle; Records;
Photograph of hut being constructed by Defendants and
wire fence on the Subject Land, taken from another angle;
Records;
Photograph of hut being constructed by Defendants and
wire fence on the subject land, taken from another angle;
Records;
Photograph taken on August 31, 2015 showing the
skeleton of a structure being constructed by Defendants on
the Subject Land; Records, p.123;
Photograph taken on August 31, 2015 showing the
skeleton of a structure being constructed by Defendants on
the Subject Land, taken from another angle, with the sign
put up by Defendants visible in the background; Records,
p.123;
Photograph taken on August 31, 2015 showing the
skeleton of a structure being constructed by Defendants on
the Subject Land, taken from another angle, with the sand
on the foreground; Records, p. 124;
Photograph taken on August 31, 2015 showing the
skeleton of a structure being constructed by Defendants on
the Subject Land, taken from another angle, with the sand
on the right bottom corner; Records, p. 124;
Photograph taken on August 31, 2015 showing the
skeleton of a structure being constructed by Defendants on
Page 3 of 7

D-15
D-16
D-17
D-18
D-19
D-20
E
F

the Subject Land, taken from another angle, and the sign
put up by Defendants clearly visible; Records, p. 125;
Photograph taken on September 3, 2015 showing that the
structure being constructed by Defendants is still a
skeleton; Records, p. 150;
Photograph taken on September 3, 2015 showing a closer
view of the structure that was still a skeleton; Records, p.
150;
Photograph taken on September 7, 2015 showing the
same structure with wall made of concrete hollow blocks;
Records, p. 150;
Photograph taken on September 7, 2015 showing a closer
view of the same structure with wall partially enclosed by
concrete; Records, p. 151;
Photograph taken on September 7, 2015, showing
panoramic view of the same unfinished structure with
partial concrete wall; Records, p. 151;
Subdivision plan of Lot 2346-A; Records;
Certification to File Action; Records;
Judicial Affidavit of Plaintiff Geraldine J. Aguirre; Records;

G
H
I
J
K

K-1

K-2

K-3
K-4
K-5
K-6

Judicial Affidavit of Teodulo G. Fernandez, Jr.; Records,

pp. 39-42;
Writ of Preliminary Injunction, dated October 2, 2015,
issued by this honorable Court; Records;
Return of Service of Writ of Preliminary Injunction;
Records;
Photograph taken on January 11, 2016, showing a new
structure being constructed beside another structure which
is already finished with complete walls and windows;
attached to Prel. Conf. Brief; Records;
Photograph taken on January 11, 2016, showing a new
structure being constructed beside another structure which
is already finished with complete walls and windows;
attached to Prel. Conf. Brief, Records;
Photograph taken on January 11, 2016, showing a new
structure being constructed beside another structure which
is already finished with complete walls and windows;
attached to Prel. Conf. Brief, Records;
Photograph taken on January 11, 2016, showing a new
structure being constructed beside another structure which
is already finished with complete walls and windows;
attached to Prel. Conf. Brief, Records;
Photograph taken on January 11, 2016, showing a finished
structure, with complete walls and windows; Records,
attached to Prel. Conf. Bried, Records;
Photograph taken at another angle on January 12, 2016
showing a finished structure, with complete walls and
windows; attached to Prel. Conf. Brief, Records;
Photograph taken on January 30, 2016, showing the
structure already with walls; attached to Prel. Conf. Brief,
Records;
Supplemental Affidavit of Geraldine J. Aguirre; Records,

Page 4 of 7

For their part, there is really nothing that the Court may consider as
evidence for the defendants, because of their failure to submit their Position
Paper and the judicial affidavit/s of their witness/es.
From the evidence presented, this Court is convinced that plaintiffs
are holders of a torrens title in their names and a tax declaration, formerly
in the name of their predecessor-in-interest, and now under their names.
On the other hand, even defendants list of documentary evidence
does not include the required proof of their claim as previous and present
owners or possessors of the subject matter; i.e. certificate of title or to the
very least, a tax declaration. According to the Supreme Court, tax
declarations are not necessarily evidence of title, but they are strong
evidence of possession for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes
year after year for a property that is not in his actual possession. 1
Conversely, a person who is not in actual possession of a property will
have no interest in paying the real property tax thereof.
Moreover, plaintiffs have clearly established that defendants have
recently invaded the subject property as shown by photographs of newlyinstalled/unfinished structures. If defendants claim were true, that they
were in previous possession of the subject property since time immemorial
as they claim to be, they should have presented proof to that effect, aside
from community tax certificates, identification cards, etc., like photographs
of old houses/structures in the area and other old improvements in the soil.
Clearly, the case of Wong vs. Carpio2 is applicable in this case,
quoted as follows:
The act of entering the property and excluding the lawful possession therefrom
necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that is
necessary. Under the rule, entering upon the premises by strategy or stealth is equally
as obnoxious as entering by force. The foundation of the action is really the forcible
exclusion of the original possessor by a person who has entered without right. The
words by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth include every situation or
condition under which one person can wrongfully enter upon real property and exclude
another who has had prior possession therefrom. If a trespasser enters upon land in
open daylight, under the very eyes of a person clothed with lawful possession, but
without the consent of the latter, and there plants himself and excludes such prior
possessor from the property, the action of forcible entry and detainer can unquestionably
be maintained, even though no force is used by the trespasser other than such as is
necessarily implied from the mere acts of planting himself on the ground and excluding
the other party.

1 Ramos vs. Court of Appeals

2 G.R. No. 50264, October 21, 1991; 203 SCRA 118, 125 [1991], citing Tolentino, Civil Code of
the Philippines, Vo. II, 1983 Ed., pp. 243-244; Drilon vs. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 342 [1987]; also
Sarona vs. Villegas, 22 SCRA 1256, 1263 [1969].
Page 5 of 7

The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a
land is entitled to possession thereof. 3 The defendant must substantiate his
justification for his continued stay in the property as against the registered
owner. As explained in one case: 4
We agree with the Court of Appeals. In Pangilinan v. Aguilar, we held that it is an
accepted rule that a person who has a torrens title over the property, such as the
respondents, is entitled to the possession thereof. We reiterated our ruling in the
Pangilinan Case in Javelosa v. Court of Appeals, and declared that the registered
owners are entitled to the possession of the property covered by the said title from the
time such title was issued in their favor.

Furthermore, in Co vs. Militar,5 the Supreme Court sustained the right

of the registered owner to possess the land. As between the certificate of
title and unregistered deed of sale, the certificate of title shall prevail. The
Court stressed therein that the Torrens System was adopted in this country
because it is believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the
integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
ownership is established and recognized.
With regard to plaintiffs prayer for defendants to pay the sum of
P5,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the occupation of the
subject property, the same is not supported with evidence, hence, the same
could not be adjudicated in their favor. In a case, the High Court held that it
is on the basis of plaintiffs evidence that the amount of rentals to be
awarded by be fixed. In other words, a first level court may fix the
reasonable amount of rent, but it must still base its action on the evidence
adduced by the parties.6 Besides, this Court has issued a writ of preliminary
injunction for defendants to cease and desist from further building or
continuing to build structures on the subject property, hence, they could not
be considered as actually using or benefiting from the subject property up
to this point.
With regard to attorneys fees and litigation expenses, the Court shall
award the amount of P50,000.00, as reasonable amount of legal expenses
in the light of defendants unjustifiable and unlawful retention of the subject
properties, thus, forcing the plaintiffs to file the instant case in order to
protect their rights and interest.7
3 Spouses Pascual vs. Spouses Coronel, G.R. No. 159292, July 12, 2007; Republic vs. Spouses
Luriz, G.R. No. 158992, January 26, 2007.
4 Spouses Apostol vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125375, June 17, 2004.
5 G.R. No. 149912, (2004).
6 Badillo vs. Tayag,G.R. No. 143976, April 3, 2003.
7 See Optima Realty Corporation vs. Hertz Phil. Exclusive Cars, Inc. G.R. No. 183035, January
9, 2013.
Page 6 of 7

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.

Defendants are directed to VACATE the subject properties and REMOVE
all structures built therein, and to REIMBURSE to plaintiffs legal expenses
in the amount of P50,000.00, upon the finality of this Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
IN CHAMBERS, Tacloban City; 26 September 2016.

xx
Presiding Judge

Page 7 of 7