Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS
Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and
Manuel Rene Jose
August 5, 1948
OCT No. 19
private respondents
DEVE
LO
Petitioner German
Management
Services
(February 9,1983)
Obtained Development
Permit No. 00424
FACTS
MTC
law
Petitioner German
Management
Allowed to improve
Services
the Barangay Road
FACTS
MTC
RTC
SUSTAINED the
dismissal
COURT OF APPEALS
ISSUES
Whether or not the doctrine of
elf-help is applicable in this case
Doctrine/ Pronouncements
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
t
hereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be r
easonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
thr
eatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
his
property. (Article 429, Civil Code)
It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of
the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet posses
sion shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or t
error. (Drilon vs. Guarana, 149 SCRA 342; Supra and Batioc
o v. Quintero and Ayala, 59 Phil. 312; Pitargo v. Sorilla, 92 P
hil. 5.)
Doctrine/ Pronouncements
Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession
even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his prior
possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that e
ntitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a
per
son having a better right by accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria. (Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron, 6 Phil. 286, 291.)
(I)n 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 i
nvoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to
del
iver the thing.(Article 536 of the Civil Code)
RULING
NO. The Doctrine of Self-help is not applicable because at the t
ime when German Management excluded the farmers, theres no
longer an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation. That actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion by
the farmers have already lapsed 12 years ago when they began
occupying the said land. In fact, they were already peaceably
f
arming the land.
YES. It is undisputed that at the time petitioner entered the
pr
operty, private respondents were already in possession thereof. T
here is no evidence that the spouses Jose were ever in possession o
f the subject property. Therefore private respondents, as actual p
ossessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner b
ecause ownership is not in issue.
Questions
1. Who is the owner or lawful possessor of the
land?
2. Who is the actual possessor of the land?
3. What is the Doctrine of self-help?
4. Why is the Doctrine of self-help not applicable
in the case?