Trespassers

Can squatters who are not parties in an ejectment case be excluded from the demolition order? This is the issue raised in this case of a neighborhood association.

The subject of the case are six parcels of land (lots 1-A, B, C, E, F, G) covered by individual certificates of title registered in the name of Marta. When Marta died, her daughter Lina, as executrix of her estate, filed an action for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) against Berto and 46 other persons who were occupying said parcels.

The MeTC eventually decided in favor of Lina. When the decision became final after appeals made by Berto’s group was resolved with finality, a writ of demolition was issued by the MeTC. The said writ was not implemented because of a series of legal maneuvers by Berto and his group enjoining its execution.

Meanwhile, another group of persons occupying portions of lots 1-F and G subject of the unlawful detainer case, organized themselves into a neighborhood association (SNA). Then SNA represented by Fredo filed a complaint for prohibition with preliminary injunction against Lina. SNA argued that it should be excluded from the demolition order as they were not parties to the original unlawful detainer case. To include their houses in the demolition order would be to deprive them of due process, the members of SNA said.

Were they correct?

No.

Although an ejectment suit is an action in personam (personal action) wherein the judgment is binding only upon the parties impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard, the judgment becomes binding on anyone who has not been impleaded if he/she is: (a) a trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property of frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or occupant of the premises with permission of the defendant; (c) a transferee pendente lite; (d) a sublessee; (e) a co-lessee or (f) a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.

In this case, Berto and his group in the SNA are trespassers or squatters who do not have any right to occupy the property of Lina. SNA does not dispute the ownership of the parcels of land in question. In fact it even admitted that the subject property is owned by Marta, Lina’s mother. They failed to establish any right which would entitle them to occupy the land in any capacity, whether as lessees, tenants and the like. Their defense that they are not included in the original detainer case has no legal support since they are trespassers or squatters who are bound by the judgment. Thus SNA’s members, together with all the parties in the unlawful detainer case must vacate the disputed land (Sunflower Neighborhood Assn. vs. Court of Appeals and Caparas, G.R. 136274, September 3, 2003).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]