This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| [31] Antazo v. Doblada, G.R. No. 178908, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 586, 594. | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Indeed, possession in ejectment cases "means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law."[25] In a forcible entry case, "prior physical possession is the primary consideration[.]"[26] "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."[27] "[T]he party in peaceable, quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence, or terror."[28] | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, it is clear that respondents sufficiently alleged in their Complaint the material facts constituting forcible entry, as they explicitly claimed that they had prior physical possession of the subject property since its purchase from petitioner, who voluntarily delivered the same to them. They also particularly described in their complaint how petitioner, together with her two sons and five other persons, encroached upon the subject property and dispossessed them of the same. Respondents' complaint contains the allegations that petitioner, abetting and conspiring with other persons, without respondents' knowledge and consent and through the use of force and intimidation, entered a portion of their land and, thereafter, uprooted and destroyed the fence surrounding the subject lot, as well as cut the trees and nipa palms planted thereon. Unlawfully entering the subject property and excluding therefrom the prior possessor would necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that is necessary.[17] In order to constitute force, the trespasser does not have to institute a state of war.[18] No other proof is necessary.[19] In the instant case, it is, thus, irrefutable that respondents sufficiently alleged that the possession of the subject property was wrested from them through violence and force. | |||||