German Management & Services v. CA (Gernale, Villeza) [G.R. No. 76216 and 76217.

September 14, 1989.] Third Division, Fernan (J): 2 concur, 1 concur in result, 1 on leave

Facts: Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and Manuel Rene Jose, residents of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, USA are the owners of a parcel of land situated in Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro,
Antipolo, Rizal, with an area of 232,942 sq. m. (TCT 50023 of the Register of Deeds Rizal
issued 11 September 1980 cancelling TCT 56762/ T-560). The land was originally registered
on 5 August 1948 in the Office of the Register of Deeds Rizal as OCT 19, pursuant to a
Homestead Patent granted by the President of the Philippines on 27 July 1948, under Act
141. On 26 February 1982, the spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney
authorizing German Management Services to develop their property into a residential
subdivision. Consequently, on 9 February 1983 the German Management obtained
Development Permit 00424 from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission for said
development. Finding that part of the property was occupied by Gernale and Villeza and
20 other persons, German Management advised the occupants to vacate the premises but
the latter refused. Nevertheless, German Management proceeded with the development of
the subject property which included the portions occupied and cultivated by Gernale, et.al.

Gernale, et.al. filed an action for forcible entry against German Management before the
MTC Antipolo, Rizal, alleging that they are mountainside farmers of Sitio Inarawan who
have occupied and tilled their farmholdings some 12 to 15 years prior to the promulgation
of PD27, and that they were deprived of their property without due process of law when
German Management forcibly removed and destroyed the barbed wire fence enclosing
their farmholdings without notice and bulldozing the rice, corn, fruit bearing trees and
other crops that they planted by means of force, violence and intimidation.. On 7 January
1985, the MTC dismissed Gernale et.al.’s complaint for forcible entry. On appeal, the RTC
Antipolo, Rizal, Branch LXXI sustained the dismissal by the MTC. Gernale then filed a
petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On 24 July 1986, said court gave due course
to their petition and reversed the decisions of the MTC and the RTC.

Property, 2003 ( 71 )

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

The Appellate Court held that since Gernale, et.al. were in actual possession of the
property at the time they were forcibly ejected by German Management, they have a right
to commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the legality or illegality of
possession. German Management moved to reconsider but the same was denied by the
Appellate Court in its resolution dated 26 September 1986. Hence the present recourse.

The Supreme Court denied the petition, and affirmed the CA decision; with costs against
German Management.
1. No violation of due process by appellate court The Court of Appeals need not require
petitioner to file an answer for due process to exist. The comment filed by petitioner on 26
February 1986 has sufficiently addressed the issues presented in the petition for review
filed by private respondents before the Court of Appeals. Having heard both parties, the
Appellate Court need not await or require any other additional pleading. Moreover, the
fact that petitioner was heard by the Court of Appeals on its motion for reconsideration
negates any violation of due process.

2. Actual possessors can commence forcible entry; Ownership not an issue Notwithstanding
the claim that German Management was duly authorized by the owners to develop the
subject property, the actual possessors can commence a forcible entry case against the
former 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. Gernale et.al were
already in peaceable possession of the property at the time German Management entered
the property, manifested by the fact that they even planted rice, corn and fruit bearing
trees 12 to 15 years prior to German Management’s act of destroying their crops.

3. Prior possessor has security to remain in property until lawfully ejected by person
having better right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria A party may validly
claim ownership based on the muniments of title it may present, such evidence does not
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 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 prior 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.

4. Doctrine of self-help can only be exercised only at the time of actual or threatened
dispossession of property The justification that the drastic action of bulldozing and
destroying the crops of the prior possessor on the basis of the doctrine of self help
(enunciated in Article 429 NCC) is unavailing because the such doctrine can only be
exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession, which is absent in the present
case. When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for
the recovery of property. This is clear from Article 536 NCC that , “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 the holder should refuse
to deliver the thing.”

[39]
Grande v. CA [G.R. No. L-17652. June 30, 1962