WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:SO ORDERED.3
- Dismissing the complaint of Forcible Entry filed against defendant Nelson Lagazo;
- Ordering the plaintiffs, Gerald B. Soriano and Galileo B. Soriano to surrender Original Certificate of Title No. P-665 in the name of Alfredo Lagazo to the heirs of Lagazo which was given to Arsenio Baac by Alfredo Lagazo when the Deed of Mortgage was executed between them;
- Ordering the heirs of Alfredo Lagazo to execute the deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiffs covering the one (1) hectare portion subject of the mortgage between Alfredo Lagazo and Arsenio Baac and to segregate the same from property covered by OCT P-665;
- Plaintiffs to pay the costs of suit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. Physical possession is hereby ordered returned to the petitioners, without prejudice to the respondent's right to take recourse to remedies provided for under the law, if he is so inclined. Actual, moral and exemplary damages cannot be granted because of lack of substantive evidence to prove the same. However, we grant the amount of P10,000.00 in attorney's fees plus P500.00 per appearance of petitioners' counsel, as well as another P10,000.00 in litigation expenses as prayed for in their complaint, conformably to par. 11 of Art. 2208 of the Civil Code, i.e. it is just and equitable under the circumstances, and considering that the award is well deserved by the petitioners who had shown evident good faith in, and respect for, the judicial system.
SO ORDERED.4
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS IMPLIED ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER THAT RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE LOT IN CONTROVERSY SINCE 1979.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PETITIONER SUBSTANTIATING HIS PRIORITY IN POSSESSION OVER THE LOT IN CONTROVERSY.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BETTER RIGHT OF POSSESSION OVER THE LOT IN CONTROVERSY.5
Ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is not involved. The sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto. On this point, the pronouncements in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals are enlightening, thus:x x x x
x x x 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.
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 prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him. To repeat, the only issue that the court has to settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession.9 (Emphasis supplied.)
x x x the word "possession," as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law. When the law speaks of possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession de jure. Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue. Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.11 (Emphasis supplied.)
Meanwhile, Marina Niñalga also recounted that in 1979, they left the subject property out of fear because Arsenio Baac allegedly wanted to grab the land for himself. She testified that after they left in 1979, it was already Arsenio Baac who cultivated said land. Despite such claim that Arsenio Baac took their land with force and intimidation, Marina said they never reported the matter to the police, and never filed any criminal action in court against Arsenio Baac.14
Q: So, at that time that you were at Alicia, Isabela and at that time that you staying thereat, you have no knowledge to what is happening to the land which is now the subject of this case, Am I correct? A: I was only hearing stories from my father and my mother that they want to regain back the land which was mortgaged, sir. x x x x Q: It is when only on January of 2001 that you allegedly claimed over the parcel of land in question, am I correct Mr. Witness? A: Was not only during that time but that was only the time we entered into the land, sir. Q: So, you are now admitting Mr. Witness, its only on January 6, 2001, you entered the land in question? A: Yes, sir. Q: And, prior to January 6 of 2001, you never possessed or cultivated the land in question, Am I correct? x x x x Q: Who was an apparent heir of spouses Alfredo Lagaso, you never personally cultivated or possessed the land in question prior to January 6, 2001, am I correct? A: No, sir because according to them it was mortgaged, Your Honor. Q: But you never personally cultivated the land prior to January 6, 2001? A: No, sir.13
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring; rollo, pp. 234-291.
2 Id. at 300.
3CA rollo, p. 125
4 Rollo, p. 291.
5 Id. at 15.
6 Acaylar, Jr. v. Harayo, G.R. No. 176995, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 624.
7 Id. at 641.
8 G.R. No. 164305, November 20, 2007, 537 SCRA 689.
9 Supra note 8, at 697-698.
10 G.R. No. 158877, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 148.
11 Id. at 158-159.
12 TSN, February 26, 2001, pp. 26, 47-52
13 TSN, June 26, 2001, pp. 220-222.
14 TSN, July 30, 2001, pp. 274-278.