Untitled possession

This is the story of Leo, a farmer who had been cultivating and tilling a parcel of land in his hometown. Sometime in November 1962, Lina, the wife of Leo, transferred their rights to the land to Lito, without consulting or informing Leo about it. By virtue of said transfer, Lito was able to obtain a free patent to the land and later had it registered under the torrens system.

Eventually, Leo learned about the issuance of the title. So, with the assistance of some civic spirited lawyers, he filed a suit in the court of first instance (now regional trial court) against Lito for the annulment of the free patent and reconveyance of the property.

Meanwhile, Lito surreptitiously entered and took possession of the southeast portion of the land in an effort to consolidate and strengthen his position as the titled owner. When Leo learned about Lito’s entry into a portion of the land he also filed an action for forcible entry in the municipal court involving the same parcel of land alleging that Lito took possession of the same by means of “stealth, force and strategy” and since then has retained possession of the premises notwithstanding demands upon him to vacate the same.

In response, Lito asked for the dismissal of the ejectment case contending that there was already a pending action for annulment and reconveyance of the property previously filed so that the pendency of the said action for the same cause barred the subsequent action for ejectment. Was Lito correct?

No. Lito’s act of dispossession occurred after the filing of the complaint for reconveyance in the CFI (now RTC). The ejectment suit filed as a consequence thereof can proceed because it has an entirely different subject from the action for reconveyance. What is involved in the forcible entry case is merely the issue of material or physical possession, so much so that the pendency of an action for reconveyance of title over the same property does not divest the municipal court of its jurisdiction to try the forcible entry case nor will it preclude the execution of the judgment of ejectment.

The purpose of the action of forcible entry and detainer is that, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable, quiet possession shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence or terror (Drilon vs. Gaurana 148 SCRA 342).

*      *      *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]