You are on page 1of 9

GERMAN MANAGEMENT &

SERVICES, INC. vs.


HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 76217 and L-76216
September 14, 1989

Prepared by: Mica Marie J. Valenzuela

FACTS
Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and
Manuel Rene Jose

Sitio Inarawan, San


Isidro, Antipolo,
Rizal

August 5, 1948
OCT No. 19

private respondents

(February 26, 1982)


Executed a special power of
attorney authorizing

DEVE
LO

Petitioner German
Management
Services
(February 9,1983)
Obtained Development
Permit No. 00424

FACTS
MTC

(August 15, 1983)


Private respondents were deprived of
their property without due process of
by:

Action for forcible entry


against petitioner
Mountainside farmers of
Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro,
Antipolo, Rizal
Members of the Concerned
Citizens of Farmer's
Association;
Occupied and tilled their
farm holdings some twelve to
fifteen years prior to the
promulgation of P.D. No. 27;

law

(1) forcibly removing and destroying the


barbed wire fence enclosing their
farm holdings without notice;
(2) bulldozing the rice, corn fruit bearing
trees and other crops of private
respondents by means of force,
violence and intimidation, in violation of
P.D. 1038
(3) trespassing, coercing and threatening
to harass, remove and eject private
respondents from their respective
farm holdings in violation of P.D. Nos.
316, 583, 815, and 1028.

Petitioner German
Management
Allowed to improve
Services
the Barangay Road

FACTS
MTC

RTC

complaint for forcible


entry

DISMISSED private respondents'


complaint for forcible entry

SUSTAINED the
dismissal

REVERSED the decisions of the Municipal


Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court.
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.

COURT OF APPEALS

ISSUES
Whether or not the doctrine of
elf-help is applicable in this case

Whether or not private respondents


are entitled to file a forcible entry
case against petitioner

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?