By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
Is force necessary in anything we do?
We can be forceful in enforcing our rights. We can be emphatic when we emphasize our arguments. In sports, we may need to use muscle to prevail over the opponent.
But in most aspects of life, especially in law, we must avoid force at all costs. The basic principle in law is one must not put the law into their hands. If you feel aggrieved as your rights may have been violated, you must file the proper case in court and not take it upon yourself to right the wrong.
In Mercuria B. Magsi v. Heirs of Ignacio A. Lopez, Jr., namely: Delia De Guzman Lopez and Lorraine De Guzman Lopez, and Rodolfo Barnachea, Sr., G.R. No. 262034, which was handed down on May 22, 2024, it was concluded that one cannot enclose with a fence and post a “no trespassing” sign on the property where another had built a house. This is true even if the builder of that house committed a mistake by building on another’s land. The act of fencing could be constitutive of “forcible entry” under the circumstances.
What does the term “force” mean in forcible entry?
In Balibago Faith Baptist Church, Inc. and Philippine Baptist S.B.C., Inc. v. Faith In Christ Jesus Baptist Church, Inc. and Reynaldo Galvan, G.R. No. 191527, August 22, 2016, it was enunciated that “This case would have to fall under the concept of forcible entry as it has been long settled that in forcible entry cases, no force is really necessary. The act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over property, and that is all that is necessary.”
Thus, regardless of the invalidity or tenuous nature of one’s possession over land or property, they cannot be ousted by force except through a court action. In forcible entry cases, one who has “prior physical possession” must be respected until a court order telling them to vacate is handed down.
“Prior physical possession,” in turn, could include “constructive possession” as in cases where the owner has not set foot on the property but has obtained it through a valid Torrens title or a public document like a sale or donation.
In Mangaser v. Ugay (G.R. No. 204926, December 3, 2014) the plaintiff filed a complaint for forcible entry and presented an original certificate of title issued in 1987 and tax declarations dated 1995 onwards to prove prior physical possession upon discovering that the defendant surreptitiously constructed a residential house on a portion of his land without his consent sometime in 2006. On the other hand, the defendant’s claim of possession anchored on the fact that he had resided in the area since birth, cultivated the land, and constructed a dwelling as early as March 2006. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It held that the plaintiff acquired possession of the subject property through a juridical act, specifically, through the issuance of a free patent under Commonwealth Act No. 141 and its subsequent registration with the register of deeds in 1987. (Mercuria B. Magsi v. Heirs of Ignacio A. Lopez, Jr., namely: Delia De Guzman Lopez and Lorraine De Guzman Lopez, and Rodolfo Barnachea, Sr., G.R. No. 262034, May 22, 2024).
Then again, in Magsi, it was underlined that even if petitioner erroneously built her house on Lot 49 which belongs to the respondents, still, petitioner was there first as she built her house in 1991 while respondents’ title was issued only in 2004. Thus it was held that:
“It must be stressed that in actions for forcible entry, the only issue is the prior material possession (possession de facto) of real property and not ownership (possession de jure). Thus, courts should base their decision on who had a prior physical possession of the property under litigation. Moreover, it must be stressed that Magsi, though not the registered owner of Lot No. 49, cannot be ousted by force from the subject property which encroaches upon Lot No. 49.” (Mercuria B. Magsi v. Heirs of Ignacio A. Lopez, Jr., namely: Delia De Guzman Lopez and Lorraine De Guzman Lopez, and Rodolfo Barnachea, Sr., G.R. No. 262034, May 22, 2024).
Indeed, in today’s world, everyone is scrambling to get to the top even if it means stepping on other people’s toes. There is a pervasive lack of mindfulness in respecting one who has “prior physical possession.”
Brazenness should not be mistaken for silent courage that takes into account the respect that other people deserve.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
