Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Plaintiff must prove that he was in prior
physical possession of the property until he
was deprived by defendant
The most important distinction is the nature of defendants entry into the subject property. In
this case, Respondent filed forcible entry because he was in prior possession of the property as
he immediately took possession of it after the deed of sale. Petitioner counters that he is in
possession of it since 1979, having built his house thereon, that it was impossible for him to
unlawfully enter as he was already occupying it.
The fact of prior physical possession is indispensable in forcible entry cases. Plaintiff cannot
succeed if there is a showing that the defendant is in possession of it before he did. Such fact
must be looked into by the SC, and since there are conflicting rulings, SC reviews the facts.
MTC relies on the first affidavit of Petitioners mother. From the first affidavit, it would appear
that Petitioner was never in possession of the subject property. However, the RTC found that
Petitioner is already in possession of it but was merely tolerated by his parents.
SC said that Petitioner is indeed in possession of the property prior to Respondents possession,
if any. Even if SC were to look into the first affidavit, it was never claimed that petitioner
unlawfully or illegally entered her property when he built his house thereon. Respondents sole
assertion that he immediately took possession of the property after buying it lacks clear
evidentiary support.
The conflicting Affidavits of Petitioners mother, notwithstanding, SC finds that petitioner was
in peaceful possession of the subject property prior to its sale to respondent. There is no
showing that either Petitioners mother or Respondent made a demand on Petitioner to vacate
the subject property. In the absence of an oral or written demand, petitioners possession of the
subject property has yet to become unlawful.