Cesar Sampayan, petitioner vs. Crispulo Vasquez and Florencia Vasquez-Galisano, respondents

GR No. 156360, 14 January 2005

DOCTRINES

Remedial Law, Jurisdiction of MeTC/MCTC/MCTC: The averment of jurisdictional facts in a forcible entry case, that the plaintiff had prior physical possession (of the property) and that he/she was deprived of it through force, intimidation, threats, strategy, and stealth is enough for the said court to acquire jurisdiction over the case.

Civil Law (Property and Land Titles) Oppositors in cadastral cases: An opposition of an oppositor in a cadastral case is not by itself, establishes prior physical possession because not all oppositors in cadastral cases are actual possessors of the land subject of the proceeding.

FACTS

Respondents-siblings Crispulo and Florencia Vasquez-Galisano filed forcible entry case against petitioner Cesar Sampayan in the MCTC of Bayugan and Sibagat, Agusan del Sur. They allege that Sampayan entered Lot No. 1859 PLS-225 and built a house there without their knowledge, consent, or authority, supposedly effected through stealth and strategy.

Moreover, they alleged that their mother Cristita Quita was the actual possessor of the said lot and after her death, they became the land’s lawful possessor. On 1 June 1997, Cesar entered the lot through strategy and strategy and subsequently built a house there. However, despite their repeated demands, Cesar refused to vacate and surrender the disputed lot.

Petitioner Sampayan denied all allegations against him and averred that he does not know the Vasquez siblings (their identity or place of residence). He also stated that he was given permission to enter and occupy the lot by Maria Ybañez, the overseer of the land’s true owners Mrs. and Mr. Anastacio Terradios.

The respondents-siblings presented evidence such as Cristita’s death certificate, Tax Declaration over the lot in her name, as well as a document stating that the lot was subject of a cadastral proceeding where Cristita was one of the oppositors.

The petitioner presented evidence stating his claim, including an affidavit of Dionesia Noynay that since 1960’s until the case was filed, neither Cristita nor the respondents-siblings ever possessed the lot.

/archie.manansalaCEU Law, Property, SY 2015-2016

After presentation of evidence, the Bayugan-Sibagat MCTC dismissed the case of the respondents Vasquez siblings against petitioner Cesar Sampayan.

The respondents-siblings appealed the dismissal of their case to the RTC Br. VII of Agusan del Sur, where it reversed the MCTC’s decision. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the Agusan Del Sur RTC’s decision. Sampayan asked for reconsideration of the adverse decision by the Court of Appeals, but it was denied.

ISSUES

Thus, petitioner Cesar Sampayan appealed the case to Supreme Court, raising these issues:

1. Whether the respondents Vasquez siblings has a valid right to possess and own the said lot

2. Can they institute forcible entry case against him?

HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT

Cesar Sampayan’s petition is GRANTED and the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the RTC Agusan del Sur’s judgment in favor of the Vasquez siblings is REVERSED.

Right to possess the property: The Supreme Court held that Cristita Quita and her children Florencia Vasquez-Galisano and Crispulo Vasquez failed to establish valid possession in concept of an owner. It upheld the findings of the MCTC and the affidavit of Dionesia Noynay that it was Sampayan’s predecessors-in-interest the Occida spouses who introduced improvements in the disputed lot and that they were not physically in possession of the disputed property.

The contention of the respondents that Cristita’s participation in a cadastral proceeding vests valid possession as owner over the lot is also disagreed by the Court.

Right to institute the forcible entry case: The Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s contention that the MCTC of Sibagat-Bayugan did not acquire jurisdiction over the forcible entry case filed against him by the respondents-siblings. Their allegation that he entered the lot without their consent, knowledge, authority through force, stealth or strategy is enough to vest jurisdiction of the said MCTC over the case.

/archie.manansalaCEU Law, Property, SY 2015-2016