Petitioner German Management invoked the Doctrine

of Self-help which provides that:

The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to

exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
his property. (Article 429, Civil Code)
Private Respondents Ernesto Villeza et al were deprived
of their property without due process of law by:

(1) forcibly removing and destroying the barbed wire fence

enclosing their farmholdings 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 and
(3) trespassing, coercing and threatening to harass,
remove and eject private respondents from their
respective farmholdings in violation of P.D. Nos. 316,
583, 815, and 1028. 1
 The spouses Manuel and Cynthia Jose contracted with German
Management and Services, Inc. for the latter to develop their
landholdings into a residential subdivision.

German Management started the project in February 1983,

however, they discovered that the land was being possessed by
Ernesto Villeza et al who were the farmers tilling the said land
at that time. German Management spoke with Villeza et al but
the farmers refused to vacate the land as the farmers claimed
that they have been occupying the land for twelve years

Nevertheless, German Management went on to develop the

property and demolished the properties of the farmers without
acquiring a court order. In turn, Erneto Villeza et al filed a case
of forcible entry against German Management.
 The Doctrine of Self-help stated in Article 429 is
not applicable because at the time 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 farming the land.
 In the case at bar, it is undisputed that at the time German
Management entered the property, Ernesto Villeza et al were
already in possession thereof. There is no evidence that the
spouses Jose were ever in possession of the subject property.
On the contrary, Respondents Ernesto et al peaceable
possession was manifested by the fact that they even planted
rice, corn and fruit bearing trees twelve to fifteen years prior to
German Managements act of destroying their crops.

Moreover, German Management may validly claim ownership

based on the muniments of title it presented, such evidence
does not responsively address the issue of prior actual
possession raised in a forcible entry case.

When possession has already been lost, the owner must

resort to judicial process for the recovery of property.