DIGEST/FERNANDEZ/VILLONDO V. QUIJANO,ET.AL/2012

VALERIANA VILLONDO VS. CARMEN QUIJANO, ADRIANO ALCANTARA, and MARCELINO EBENA

 G.R. No. 173606, December 3, 2012

 

FACTS:

This case involves a legal battle for forcible entry, two parties assert their alleged right to possess a 2.66-hectare government timberland in Cebu City.

Petitioner claimed that Respondent Carmen and her farm laborers, respondent Alcantara and Ebena intruded her land with the help of three policemen. They also destroyed the plants, harvested the trees, built a hut and fenced off the lot with a “no trespassing sign” which prevented Valeriana and her family from entering the premises.

Valeriana argued that Carmen can never assert ownership over the property because it is a government land. Valeriana based her and her family’s right of possession on Certificate of Stewardship No. 146099 in the name of ‘Daniel T. Villondo’, which she claimed to have been awarded to her now-deceased husband whose actual name is ‘Daniel P. Villondo. Said Certificate was issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources on February 14, 1994. Valeriana averred that her family had prior possession of the land as her husband started tilling the same even before the war.

 On the other hand, Carmen interposed that the alleged "Kasabutan" was never brought to her attention by her parents. In any case, she asserted that such allegation of Valeriana even supports her claim of prior possession. Carmen tacked her possessory right to that of her parents Rufo and Constancia Bacalla who in 1948 purchased from Liberato and Vicente Abellanosa a 4.51-hectare land in Taop, Pardo, Cebu City covered by Tax Declaration No. 92638. According to her, said 4.51-hectare land includes the disputed area which her parents also cultivated and developed. Carmen submitted to the court her tax declarations over the land.

 The respondents also questioned Valeriana’s legal personality to sue, contending that "Daniel T. Villondo," the named tiller in the Certificate of Stewardship No. 146099, is the real party-in-interest and thus should be the plaintiff in the suit and not Valeriana. They claimed that "Daniel T. Villondo" is actually Valeriana’s son Romualdo Villondo (Romualdo), a construction worker who had never even cultivated the subject land. Respondents refuted Valeriana’s claim that the named tiller in the Certificate refers to her husband "Daniel P. Villondo, who was awarded by the government a Certificate of Stewardship over another parcel of land in 1983. Because of this, they asserted that Valeriana is misleading the court by making it appear that she has successional rights from her husband as steward. To support this, respondents submitted the respective stewardship applications as well as other documents indicating that Daniel P. Villondo and Daniel T. Villondo are different persons. Notably, Regino’s Affidavit admits that Daniel T. Villondo refers to Romualdo.

 The MTC ruled in favor of Valeriana ordering the respondent to vacate and move out from the premises of the subject land and to restore Valeriana to the peaceful possession and occupation thereof.

 Dismayed with the judgment, respondents appealed to the RTC of Cebu City and reiterated their claim of prior possession of the property. The RTC found Valeriana’s Complaint dismissible for lack of cause of action. The court ruled that the complaint should have been initiated by Romualdo Villondo, who is using the name of Daniel T. Villondo, because he is the real party-in-interest and not by his mother, the herein appellee Valeriana Villondo. There is also no showing that Romualdo Villondo is a minor or an incompetent who needs the assistance of his mother as guardian ad litem. Valeriana filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied.

Valeriana elevated the case to the CA but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Valeriana is a real party-in-interest in the forcible entry case she filed?

RULING:

Notably, even public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases as it has already been held that ejectment proceedings may involve all kinds of land. Thus, in the case at bench, while the parties are fighting over the possession of a government land, the courts below are not deprived of jurisdiction to render judgment thereon. Courts must resolve the issue of possession even if the parties to the ejectment suit are mere informal settlers.

For a court to restore possession, two things must be proven in a forcible entry case: prior physical possession of the property and deprivation of the property by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. "Possession de facto, [i.e., the physical possession of a property,] and not possession de jure is the only issue in a forcible entry case. This rule holds true regardless of the character of a party’s possession, provided that he has in his favor priority in time. As used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, ‘possession’ refers to "physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law."

Here, Valeriana is one of those in prior physical possession of the land who was eventually dispossessed.

Carmen failed to present evidence that she was in actual physical possession of the land she claims. Her tax declarations are not conclusive proofs of ownership, or even of possession. They only constitute proofs of a claim of title over the declared property.

A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."

‘Interest’ within the meaning of the rules means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. A real party-in interest is one who has a legal right. The action must be brought by the person who, by substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced.

Furthermore, Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court specifies who may be the plaintiff in an action for forcible entry, viz:

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when? - x x x a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. 

The MTCC correctly considered Valeriana as a real party-in-interest and correctly delved strictly with the issue of physical possession. Notably, the CA, other than dismissing the case for lack of cause of action, did not seem to dispute the MTCC’s factual finding of Valeriana’s prior physical possession. Absent any evidence of respondents’ prior physical possession. Valeriana, who has cogently convinced us that she was dispossessed of the land by force is entitled to stay on the property until she is lawfully ejected by others who can prove in a separate proceeding that they have a better right.

We then end by highlighting the principle behind ejectment proceedings: xxx Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.