GERMAN MGMT SERVICES INC VS CA

FACTS:
Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are
owners of the land situated in sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo,
Rizal (the land being disputed in the case at bar.) The spouses
Jose executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner
German Management Services to develop their property. They
have already acquired the proper permits to do so but they
discovered that the land was occupied by the respondent with 20
other farmers (members of the Concerned of Farmers
Association.) These farmers have occupied the land for the last
twelve to fifteen years prior to the issuance of the permits and
they already have their crops all over the property. In short, they
are in actual possession of the land.
Petitioners tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and; demolish
and bulldoze their crops and property. The respondents filed in CFI
because they were deprived of their property without due process
of law by trespassing, demolishing and bulldozing their crops and
property situated in the land. CFI and RTC denied it but CA
reversed the decision. Petitioners tried to appeal the decision in
CA but were denied thus this appeal

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are entitled to file a forcible
entry case against petitioner?
RULING:
YES, they are entitled to file a forcible entry case! Since private
respondents were in actual possession of the property at the time
they were forcibly ejected by petitioner, private respondents have
a right to commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the
legality or illegality of possession.
Private respondents, as actual possessors, can commence a
forcible entry case against petitioner because ownership is not in

issue. Forcible entry is merely a quieting process and never

determines the actual title to an estate. Title is not involved, only
actual possession. It is undisputed that private respondents were
in possession of the property and not the petitioners nor the
spouses Jose. Although the petitioners have a valid claim over
ownership this does not in any way justify their act of forcible
entry. It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of
the title to the property the party in peaceable quiet possession
shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Thus,
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 priority in time,
he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property
until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The doctrine of self
help, which the petitioners were using to justify their actions, are
not applicable in the case because it can only be exercised at the
time of actual or threatened dispossession which is absent in the
case at bar (in fact they are the ones who are threatening to
remove the respondents with the use of force.) Article 536
basically tells us that the owner or a person who has a better right
over the land must resort to judicial means to recover the
property from another person who possesses the land.
When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of property. As clearly stated in
Article 536- In no case may possession be acquired through
force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects
thereto. He who believes that he has an action or right to deprive
another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the
competent court, if holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
ANDREA TABUSO and RENATO BISMORTE, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and the HEIRS OF ESTEBAN
ABADrepresented by Nemesio Abad and Ana Abad Paghubasan,
This case involves declaration of ownership. Andrea Tabuso claims
to be the owner of a parcel land which she inherited by

her mother evidence by tax declaration. However, the property

has been in the possession of the heirs of Esteban Abad, although
thehouse standing thereon appears to have been constructed by
Marcelo Tabuso, father of Andrea Tabuso. Heirs allegation that
theproperty was sold to Esteban by Isabel elaban evidence bby
tax dec. TRIAL: declared the defendant the lawful owners of the
land inquestion that even if tabuso had built a house thereon,
such action was only tolerated by the heirs, who had originally
allowed oneMarcelo Tabuso to construct a house on the same lot.
Besides, Tabuso is not a compulsory heir of Ignacio Montes, from
whom sheclaims to have inherited the lot, subject of this
litigation. In addition, the tax declaration in his name has long
been revised. CA:affirmed. Hence this petition.
Ownership of the Property
: Ownership exists when a thing pertaining to one person is
completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law
and consistent with the rights of others. Ownership confers
certain rights to the owner, one of which is the rightto dispose of
the thing by way of sale. possession is defined as the holding of a
thing or the enjoyment of a right. Literally, topossess means to
actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right.
Possession may be had in one of two ways:possession in the
concept of an owner and possession of a holder. Possessors in the
concept of owners may be the ownersthemselves or those who
claim to be so. On the other hand, those who possess as mere
holders acknowledge in another a superior right which he believes
to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong."In this case,
the evidence shows that the occupation of the property by
petitioners is not in the concept of owners, because their stay is
merely tolerated. This finding is bolstered by the fact that
Petitioner Andrea Tabuso is the daughter of Marcelo Tabuso,
whowas merely allowed by the previous owner, Esteban Abad, to
construct a small house on the lot. Lastly, the claim of petitioners
thatprivate respondents are not in actual possession of the land is
unsubstantiated. Besides, it is not necessary that the latter
actuallystay on the property in order to prove ownership of the
same. As found by both the trial and the appellate courts, since
theacquisition of the subject property by private respondents,
they had religiously paid the taxes due thereon. Further, one of

the co-owners executed a lease contract over it in favor of a

tenant. These acts are clearly consistent with ownership.
BISHOP OF BALANGA V. CA
- The parties do not dispute that the Roman Catholic
Archbishop [sic] of Manila was the owner of a parcel of land
covered by OCT No. 14379
- With respect to its rights over its properties in Bataan
(inclusive of Lot No. 1272), the said church was succeeded
by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Fernando, Pampanga
which was, likewise, succeeded by . . . Catholic Bishop of
Balanga registered as a corporation on 15 December 1975
- Prior thereto, or on 23 August 1936 the then parish priest
and administrator of all the properties of the said church in
the Municipality of Balanga Bataan, Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili,
executed an Escritura De Donacion donating an area of Lot
No. 1272 to Ana de los Reyes and her heirs, as a reward for
her long and satisfactory service to the church
- Her acceptance of the donation, as well as her possession of
the subject property, is indicated in the deed of donation,
which deed, for unknown reasons, was refused registration
by the Register of Deeds
o In 1939, Ana died
- Nevertheless, before her death, she had given the subject
property to her nephew who had been living with her, the
herein defendant-appellant [private respondent] who
immediately took possession of the property in concept of
owner
- Herein petitioner filed the instant complaint against him
after more than 49 years after the deed of donation was
executed
o Alleged that the respondent, w/o knowledge and
consent of the petitioner and its predecessors-ininterest, entered and occupied the subject property and
that defendant refused to vacate the premises
- As his defense, defendant-appellant [private respondent]
maintains that by virtue of the deed of donation of 23 August
1936 executed in favor of his predecessor-in-interest, he is

the lawful owner of the subject property and the complaint

states no cause of action as it was filed only to harass him
After 10 months, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the instant action is barred
by the statute of limitations
Petitioner opposed alleging that the defense of prescription
was not raised in a timely filed motion to dismiss
LC rendered judgment
o Defendant-appellant [private respondent] failed to
present the necessary power of attorney executed by
the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila giving Rev. Fr.
Mariano Sarili the authority to execute the deed of
donation
o The first 2 paragraphs of the Excritura de Donacion
indicates that the parish priest . . . was only the
administrator of all, hence, had no authority to dispose
in whatever manner any of the properties of the Roman
Catholic Church of Balanga, Bataan
o Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili was not authorized to, and could
not validly, donate the subject lot
o Thus, the deed of donation he executed is
unenforceable under Art. 1403 of the New Civil Code
and defendant-appellant [private respondent], as well
as his predecessor-in-interest, never acquired
ownership over the subject property
CA ruled in favor of respondent
o Private respondent could not have acquired ownership
over the subject property through acquisitive
prescription because the same having been duly
registered under the Torrens system
o Nonetheless, respondent Court of Appeals ultimately
ruled that under the doctrine of laches, the
consequence of petitioner's inaction for 49 years since
the execution of the deed of donation, despite its
apparently undeniable knowledge of private
respondent's adverse, peaceful and continuous
possession of the subject property in the concept of an
owner from 1936 to the institution of the recovery suit

in 1985, is that it has lost its rights to the subject

property and can no longer recover the same
- Hence this petition
o Laches means the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier
The time-honored rule anchored on public policy is
that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim
or demand has become "stale", or who has
acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time
o Elements of laches
Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one
under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation
complained of
Delay in asserting complainant's right after he had
knowledge of the defendant's conduct and after he
has an opportunity to sue
Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
defendant that the complainant would assert the
right on which he bases his suit
Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event
relief is accorded to the complainant
- Petition is DISMISSED