Santiago v.

Cruz
19 Phil. 148
March 24, 1930
Art. 536 Possession; Art. 429 Ownership
Doctrine:
Since defendant Cruz acquired possession by force and against the will
of the plaintiff and took the law into her own hands, the fact that she was
invited by defendant Dizon is immaterial as Dizon had no greater right than
Cruz.
Facts:
When one Juan Dizon died on July 20, 1927, plaintiff Vicente Santiago
was appointed as special administrator and took possession of the property left
by the deceased, including the house Dizon lived for at least 20 years. Two
months later, Marta Dizon, a close relative of the deceased, entered the house
and made it her abode, against the will of the plaintiff. 3 days later, herein
defendant, Cristina Cruz, also made the house her house on the invitation of
Marta Dizon and remained there notwithstanding the objections of the
plaintiff.
Trouble immediately ensued, and the plaintiff asserts that other persons
living in the house were insulted and annoyed to such an extent that they were
compelled to leave. To prevent further alleged depredations on the part of
Marta and Cristina, the plaintiff placed padlocks on most of the doors in the
house, and subsequently obtained an order from the CFI authorizing him to
employ sheriffs to aid him in maintaining order in the house. 3 days later, the
court revoked said order but authorized the plaintiff to employ deputy sheriffs
at his own expense.
Marta Dizon died, but Cristina Cruz still insisted on living in the
house, and the plaintiff brought the present action against her for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer. The court rendered judgment in favor of defendant.
Upon appeal, the court reversed the order but absolved Cruz from a claim
presented by the plaintiff in the same case for expenses incurred by him in
employing a deputy sheriff.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether defendant-appellant can be legally ejected from said house
Held:
Yes.
Cristina Cruz claims that she has an inherited interest in the house and
is a tenant in common with the heirs of Juan Dizon and that she therefore
cannot be legally ejected from the house. This contention cannot be
successfully maintained. The plaintiff held possession of the house before

Marta Dizon and the defendant took possession. They acquired such
possession by force and against the will of the plaintiff, taking the law in their
own hands. In these circumstances, the defendant must suffer the
consequences of her lawlessness whether she is a part owner of the property or
not. The fact that she was invited by Marta Dizon is immaterial; Marta had no
greater right than the defendant.