SAMPAYAN V VASQUEZ (2005)
J. GARCIA
Agusan Del Sur (from MTC of Bayugan and Sibagat)
FACTS:
- Siblings Crispulo Vazquez and Florencia Vasquez-
GIlsnao filed a compaint for forcible entry against
Cesar Sampayan in 1992 before the MCTC of
Bayugan and Sibagat, ADS
- They alleged that Sampayan entered and occupied a
parcel of land, through strategy and stealth, and built
a house thereon without their knowledge, consent or
authority
VASQUEZES:
- their mother Cristita Quita was the owner and actual
possessor of the land since 1957
- after her death, they became co-owners and lawful
possessor of the lot
- in 1992, Sampayan entered the lot and built a house
thereon while they were absent from the lot
- despite repeated demands, Sampayan failed and
refused to vacate the lot
SAMPAYAN:
- neither the Vasquezes or their mother have ever been
in possession of the lot
- he asked and was given permission therefor by
Maria Ybanez, the overseer of the true owners of the
lots (Sps. Terrado, who were temporarily residing at
Cebu for business) to enter the lot
- that claim long prescribed: lot possessed and
declared for tax by Sps. Oriol in 1960, sps Oriol
sold to Sps Terrado, to Manolito Occida and
Juiana Sambale-Occida both vendees possess
lands up to present
MCTC judge conducted an ocular inspection
- found the house of Sampayan; dilapidated house
Peter Siscon; a portion of the house of Macario
Noynay, husband of Dionisia Noynay, witness for
Sampayan
- the improvements could never have been introduced
by the Vasquezes nor by their mother. But by
vendees
- nothing can be seen that, once upon a time, the
Vasquezes had been in possession of the land
- Allegation that Quita was in possession naked
claim, unsupported by evid
- Sampayan had been in possession of the land for
more than one year; the action of the Vasquezes if
any is accion publiciana or plenaria de possession
- MCTC dismissed the complaint
- RTC reversed MCTC: Cristita was among the
oppositors in the Cadastral Case covering the lot; It
was Cristita who was in actual prior physical
possession of the lot
- CA affirmed RTC
ISSUE:
a) WON the MCTC had jurisdiction over the
complaint given that during hearing it
found that accion publiciana and not
forcible entry is the proper action
b) Will complaint for forcible entry in this
case prosper?
HELD:
1. YES
-
- Sarmiento v. CA
o Necessary that complaint embody such
statement of facts as brings the party
clearly within class of cases for which
statutes provide a remedy
- for the MCTC to acquire jurisdiction over a forcible
entry case, it is enough that the complaint avers the
jurisdictional facts:
a. that the plaintiff had physical possession; and
b. that he was deprived thereof by the defendant
through force, intimidation, threats, strategy
and stealth
- the finding during the hearing which rendered
improper an action for forcible entry cannot deprive
MCTC of its jurisdiction over the case
- uncontested findings of MCTC judge
o predecessors-in-interest have
introduced improvements (caimito
trees, coconut tress, and others)
o sworn affidavit of Noynay (resident
from 1960) that neither respondents
nor their mother possessed lot she is
a neighbor
c) NO
- Pet argues that proper remedy is AP or PDP juris
of RTC, not MCTC
- In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must
prove that he was in prior possession of the land,
and that he was deprived thereof (F, I, T, strategy,
stealth)
- Absence of prior physical possession by the plaintiff
in a forcible entry case warrants the dismissal of his
complaint
- The Vasquezes had never been in possession of the
land
- Cristitas being an oppostior in the cadastral case
covering the lot does not by itself establish prior
physical possession; not all oppositors are actual
possessors of the lots subject thereof