PASAGUI V VILLABLANCA

FACTS: Appellants Calixto Pasugui and Fausta Mosar filed a complaint with the
CFI of Cebu alleging that it paid and in consideration of 2,800php, bought from
appellees Bocar a parcel of agricultural land; that before they could take
possession of the property, defendants Villablanca illegally and without right took
possession of the property harvesting coconuts depriving plaintiffs of its
possession. Plaintiffs demanded the return of the property but defendants
refused. Appellees moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that CFI had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action being one of forcible entry.

ISSUE: Whether or not the case is of forcible entry.

HELD: No. In order that an action may be considered as one of forcible entry, it is
not only necessary that the plaintiff should allege his prior physical possession of
the property but also that he was deprived of his possession by any means
provided in Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court, namely: force,
intimidation, threats, strategy and stealth.

It is true that the mere act of a trespasser in unlawfully entering land would imply
the use of force. In the case at bar, no such inference could be made as
plaintiffs-appellants had not claimed that they were in actual physical possession
of the property prior to the entry of the Villablancas.