FACTS:
Plaintiffs Calixto Pasagui and Fausta Mosar bought a property in Leyte from Estaquia and Catalina Bocar for P2,800. Before they could take possession of the property, defendant spouses Ester T. Villablanca and Zosimo Villablanca took possession of it and harvested from the coconut plantation thereon. Plaintiffs demanded the return of the property but the defendants refused.
Plaintiffs filed a case in the CFI but respondents contend that the case is a forcible entry and as such, CFI has no jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
WON the case is of forcible entry.
HELD:
In order that an action may be considered as one for 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 of the means provided in section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court.
It is true that the execution of the deed of absolute sale in a public instrument is equivalent to delivery of the land subject of the sale. This presumptive delivery only holds true when there is no impediment that may prevent the passing of the property from the hands of the vendor into those of the vendee. It can be negated by the reality that the vendees actually failed to obtain material possession of the land subject of the sale.
1 comment:
The held/ruling can be further improve because the 2nd paragraph does not relate to the issue.
"For, if the dispossession did not take place by any of these means, the courts of first instance, not the municipal courts, have jurisdictions.. The bare allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff has been "deprived" of the land of which he is and has been the legal owner for a long period has been held to be insufficient. It is true that the mere act of a trespasser in unlawfully entering the land, planting himself on the ground and excluding therefrom the prior possessor 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."- Pasagui v. VILLABLANCA
Post a Comment