Far Eastern University

Institute of Law
PRACTICE COURT
Judge Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena

Case Development Initiative : Forcible Entry

December 3, 2018

Submitted by:
QUISING, JOSIAH DAVID FELIX

1
 I. Introduction

The case taken up by the herein Student is the encroachment of Jun-Jun Pavo, respondent in
the complaint drafted by the Student, to the property co-owned by plaintiffs Rowena Raquel T.
Capacite and her brother Ronald Ramil S. Totanes. Rowena Capacite is a personal family friend
and churchmate of the Student.

The Student learned of the potential case when Mrs. Rowena Capacite asked the church to pray
for her and for some divine intervention when she learned of the Respondent’s unlawful possession
of a portion of her property and refusal to vacate the portion of the lot and return the fence to its
original position.

Upon interviewing Mrs. Capacite, the Student has concluded that the most appropriate legal
action Mrs. Capacite can resort to would be to file a case of Forcible Entry.

II. Forcible Entry

The remedy for Forcible Entry can be found in Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Section 1 of
which states -

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — Subject to the provisions
of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives
or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time
within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,
bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons
unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons
claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages
and costs.

2
 A. Jurisdiction and Venue

Jurisdiction for Forcible Entry cases lies with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)1 while its
venue is at the MTC of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated2.

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Proceedings

Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1508 requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process
before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo as a precondition to filing a
complaint in court subject to certain exceptions, none of which applies in this case. The same
requirement can be seen in RA 7160, or the Local Government Code, which provides that

Sec. 412 (a) Precondition to filing a complaint in court. No complaint, petition,

action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall
be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for
adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the
lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been
reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by
the lupon chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been
repudiated by the parties thereto.

Unless the case filed falls within the exceptions provided in the law, failing to go through
barangay conciliation proceedings prior to filing the complaint in court will result into the case
being considered “pre-mature” and “not ripe for judicial determination”3.

C. Requisites

Forcible entry is the deprivation of physical possession of any land or building by means of
force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth 4 . For the MTC to acquire jurisdiction over the
Forcible Entry case, three requisites must be first proven:

1. The plaintiffs must allege their prior physical possession of the property;

1
Rule 70, Section 1
2
Rule 4, Section 1
3
Aquino v. Aure, GR No. 153567, February 18, 2008.
4
Supra note 1.

3
 2. They must also assert that they were deprived of possession either by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
3. The action must be filed within one year from the time the owners or legal
possessors learned of their deprivation of physical possession of the land or
building5.

Unlike in unlawful detainer cases, a demand to vacate is not necessary for Forcible Entry
cases6. Also, the claims of ownership may be resolved by courts without affecting the question of
possession in ejectment proceedings7.

All pleadings under Rule 70 (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer) must be verified8.

III. Facts of the Case

The subject lot, located in Lot 3, Barangay Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal is co-owned by Mrs.
Capacite with her brother – Ronald Totanes. They inherited said lot from their deceased father –
Ramon Totanes. Respondent Jun-Jun Pavo, a retired military officer, lives beside the subject lot.

The subject lot is occupied by a caretaker – Ms. Cecil Dolor. Last October 29, Respondent
moved the fence of the subject lot in favor of his property. When the Plaintiffs learned of the
Respondent’s actions, they demanded that he return the fence to its original location, but he refused
to do so despite several verbal demands.

IV. Legal Opinion

The facts of the case satisfy the requisites of a Forcible Entry case – the plaintiffs had prior
possession of the subject lot, the respondent deprived the plaintiffs of possession of a portion of
the Subject Lot through force, and the prescriptive period of one year has not yet lapsed.

With regard to the requisite of “prior possession” by the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court has held
in the case of Mediran v Villanueva that

5
Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 139442, December 6, 2006.
6
Sps. Ong v. Parel, G.R. No. 143173, March 28, 2001.
7
Corpuz v. Sps. Agustin, GR No. 183822, January 18, 2012.
8
Rule 70, Section 4.

4
 Evidence of ownership is competent proof in an action of forcible entry and detainer
where it is introduced merely to establish the fact of possession and the character
of such possession. Thus, a document of title may be introduced to show the limits
to which a party has been holding and the character of the possession exercised by
him9.

The subject lot is registered under the name of the plaintiffs in TCT No. 009-
2017002714. That is competent proof of their possession of the subject lot.

“Force” as an element of Forcible Entry does not necessarily mean “violence” but
rather the act of excluding the rightful possessor of the property10. Accordingly, the act of
the Respondent in moving the fence and refusing to put it back constitutes “force” as to
result to forcible entry.

The deprivation happened only last month, or at October 29; therefore, the action is
well-within the prescriptive period.

Having satisfied all the requisites of a Forcible Entry case, it is the most appropriate
remedy Mrs. Capacite and her brother can and should avail of.

V. Conclusion

Forcible Entry is a summary procedure11 meant to speedily restore the possession of a property
to its lawful possessor. The law does not specify a minimum size for an unlawfully possessed land.
Even in this case where only a portion of the subject lot is affected, the Courts can give remedy to
land owners with abusive neighbors such as in this case.

9
Felix Mediran v. Maximiano Villanueva, et al, GR No. L-12838, March 9, 1918
10
Id.
11
Rule 70, Section3.

5
Note:

Attached as one of the annexes in the complaint drafted by the Student is an unofficial Barangay
Certificate to File an Action made by the Student himself in an effort to make the complaint more
realistic. This would also be pursuant to the specific instructions of the professor prohibiting the
students to take cases which have been filed or pending in “any government agency” as the case
of Mrs. Capacite has not yet been filed in any government agency including the Lupon. The
Student chose to attach an unofficial CFA to justify the “filing” of the complaint to a court of
justice and to show that he is not unaware of the requirement of a prior barangay conciliation
proceeding before filing a complaint to a court. The names of the members of the Lupon therein
are therefore fictional except that of the Punong Barangay – Hector P. Reyes, which is the actual
Barangay and Lupon Chairman of Barangay Ampid.

The rest of the attached documents (Transfer Certificate of Titles, birth certificate, death
certificate, government IDs, and pictures of the encroached property) are real.