G.R. No. 76217 and L-76216 September 14, 1989

GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS

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

 (February 26, 1982) Executed a special power of

attorney authorizing

Petitioner Ger-man Manage-

ment Services

DEVELOP

(February 9,1983)Obtained Develop-ment Permit No.

00424

private respon-dents

• Mountainside farmers of Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal • Members of the Con-cerned 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;

FACTS

Action for forcible en-try against petitioner

Petitioner Ger-man Manage-

ment Services

Allowed to im-prove the

Barangay Road 

(August 15, 1983)Private respondents were deprived of their property without due process of law by:

(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 threat-ening to harass, remove and eject private respondents from their respective farm holdings in vio-lation of P.D. Nos. 316, 583, 815, and 1028.

MTC

complaint for forcible entry

FACTS

MTC

DISMISSED private respon-dents' complaint for forcible

entry

RTC

SUSTAINED the dismissal

COURT OF AP-PEALS

REVERSED the decisions of the Mu-nicipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial

Court.Private respondents were in actual posses-

sion ofthe property at the time they were forcibly

ejectedby petitioner, private respondents have a

right to commence an action for forcible entry regard-

less of the legality or illegality of possession.

ISSUES

• Whether or not the doctrine of self-help is applicable in this case

• Whether or not private respon-dents 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 dis-posal 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 prop-erty. (Article 429, Civil Code)

• It must be stated that regardless of the actual condi-tion of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. (Drilon vs. Guarana, 149 SCRA 342; Supra and Batioco v. Quintero and Ayala, 59 Phil. 312; Pitargo v. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5.)

Doctrine/ Pronouncements

• Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such pos-session even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the char-acter of his prior possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person 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 intimida-tion as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who be-lieves that he has an action or right to deprive another of the hold-ing of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.“(Article 536 of the Civil Code)

RULING

• NO. The Doctrine of Self-help is not applicable because at the time when German Management excluded the farmers, there’s no longer an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation. That actual or threatened unlaw-ful 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.

•YES. It is undisputed that at the time petitioner entered the property, private respondents were already in possession thereof. There is no evidence that the spouses Jose were ever in possession of the subject property. Therefore private respondents, as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner because 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 appli-cable in the case?