Dear Atty.

Good day!

On October 6, 2020, I requested Atty. Mona Lissa C. Monje-Viray (Atty.

Viray, for brevity) through an e-mail to please check my complaint-affidavit
for action for forcible entry and damages with prayer for issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction because I
decided to file forcible entry instead of filing annulment of documents and
title, reconveyance, injunction, and damages.

Since I did not receive any response from her, I decided to call her on
October 12, 2020 to follow-up the status of my request to her.

During our cellphone conversation, she told me that if I will file an Action
for Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of Title my complaint for
Forcible Entry will be DISMISSED by the court because Estelita Delizo
(Estelita, for brevity) has certificate of title under her name covering
the subject property.

When I told her that I will also filed Annulment of Documents and Title
and Reconveyance, she mentioned to me that said complaint will also
be DISMISSED by the court because the Action for Forcible Entry was
DISMISSED.

Moreover, according to her, I will be committing forum shopping if I

will file an Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title.
Screen shots of my text conversations with Atty. Florante C. Natividad
(Atty. Natividad, for brevity), District Public Attorney of PAO-Urdaneta City
are hereto attached as Annexes “A-A4” to prove that she denied my
request for legal assistance because according to Atty. Viray, if I will file
an Action for Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of Title my
complaint for Forcible Entry will be DISMISSED by the court because
Estelita has certificate of title under her name covering the subject
property and I will be committing forum shopping if I will file an
Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title.

Furthermore, it is worthy to mention that Atty. Viray did not deny that the
aforementioned reasons were her reasons why she denied my request for
legal assistance.
Although as a law student I know that issuance of title does not vest
ownership of a parcel of land but only shows or evidences who the owner/s
of the land is/are, I called your office to seek legal advice if a complaint for
forcible will be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has a certificate
of title covering the subject property and if forum shopping exist if a case
for forcible entry and an annulment for tittle will be filed.

According to the Officer-of-the-day who gave legal advice to me, I may file
separate action for forcible entry and annulment of title because said cases
are different cause of action. And since said cases are different cause of
action, I will not commit forum shopping.

For me to have an evidence that Atty. Viray is denying my request for legal
assistance because according to her, if I will file an Action for Forcible
Entry instead of Annulment of Title my complaint for Forcible Entry
will be DISMISSED by the court because Estelita has certificate of title
under her name covering the subject property and I will be
committing forum shopping if I will file Action for Forcible Entry and
then Annulment of Title I sent an e-mail to Atty. Viray to request a
certification stating that she denied my request for legal assistance
because if I will file an Action for Forcible Entry instead of Annulment
of Title my complaint for Forcible Entry will be DISMISSED by the
court because Estelita has certificate of title under her name covering
the subject property and I will be committing forum shopping if I will
file an Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title but as
usual she did not send any reply to me that is why I was constraint to
request for issuance of denial form in accordance to 2016 Amended PAO
Operations Manual so that I will have sufficient basis in questioning said
denial form.

Contrary to the reasons that she mentioned to me why she denied my

request for legal assistance, the ground for denial that she mentioned on
the denial form that Atty. Honorio Sagsago, Regional Public Attorney sent
to me through an e-mail is that I do not trust her anymore which is
according to her falls under Article 4 (5), Chapter IX of 2016 Amended PAO
Operations Manual.

It is humbly submitted that issuance of title does not vest ownership of a

parcel of land but only shows or evidences who the owner/s of the land
is/are. In the case of Heirs of Clemente Ermac vs. Heirs of Vicente Ermac
(G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003), the Supreme Court pronounced the
following:

“Ownership should not be confused with a

certificate of title. Registering land under the
Torrens System does not create or vest title,
because registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. A certificate of title is merely an
evidence of ownership or title over the particular
property described therein.”

“xxx it must be stressed that the fact that the petitioner possesses a
Torrens Title does not automatically give her unbridled authority to
immediately wrest possession. It goes without saying that even the
owner of the property cannot wrest possession from its current
possessor. This was precisely the Court's ruling in Spouses
Munoz v. CA, 66 viz.:

If the private respondent is indeed the owner of the

premises and that possession thereof was deprived from
him for more than twelve years, he should present his
claim before the Regional Trial Court in an accion
publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria and not before the
Municipal Trial Court in a summary proceeding of
unlawful detainer or forcible entry. For even if he is the
owner, possession of the property cannot be
wrested from another who had been in possession
thereof for more than twelve (12) years through a
summary action for ejectment.

Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim

ownership based on the muniments of title it presented,
such evidence does not responsibly address the issue of
prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case.

It must be stated that regardless of actual condition of the

title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession
shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or
terror. Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can
 recover such possession even against the owner
himself. xxx”

Based on the above cited jurisprudence, Estelita needs to undergo judicial

process first before she may recover the possession and/or ownership of
the land in dispute to me which Estelita did not do. Instead, on April 9,
2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under Enhanced Community
Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall be followed, Jaime
Delizo and Estelita with their cohorts entered the subject property
without my consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and then
proceeded to cut down different trees planted by my late parents
Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), burned it
and cleaned the area.1

Further, “The Rules are clear that if the entry into the property is
illegal, the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible
entry and this action must be brought within one (1) year from the illegal
entry. xxx” 2

“xxx for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove:
(1) prior physical possession of the property; and (2) unlawful
deprivation of it by the defendant through force, intimidation,
strategy, threat or stealth.” 3

In the case at bar, for more than fifty (50) years, I and my predecessor in
interest’s occupation over the subject property of this case was undisturbed
until on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under Enhanced
Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall be followed,
Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the above-mentioned lot
without my consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and then proceeded to
cut down different trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P. Flores and

1
Copy of Trinidad Fontanilla Judicial Affidavit is hereto attached as Annex
“B”.
2
Teresita Bugayong-Santiago, Earl Eugene Santiago, Edward Santiago, and
Edgardo Santiago, Jr. vs. Teofilo Bugayong, G.R. No. 220389, December 6,
2017.
3
Nenita Quality Foods Corp. vs. Crisostomo Galabo, Adelaida Galabo, and
Zenaida Galabo-Almacbar, G.R. No. 174191, January 30, 2013.
Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the area 4

In explaining what amounted to force, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled

that:
“Unlawfully entering the subject property and
excluding therefrom the prior possessor would
necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that
is necessary. In order to constitute force, the
trespasser does not have to institute a state of
war. No other proof is necessary. 5”

The Honorable Supreme Court further explained what constitutes force,

intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth in David v. Cordova6 -

“The words "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy

or stealth" include every situation or condition
under which one person can wrongfully enter upon
real property and exclude another, who has had
prior possession therefrom. If a trespasser enters
upon land in open daylight, under the very eyes of
the person already clothed with lawful possession,
but without the consent of the latter, and there
plants himself and excludes such prior possessor
from the property, the action of forcibly entry and
detainer can unquestionably be maintained, even
though no force is used by the trespasser other
than such as is necessarily implied from the mere
acts of planting himself on the ground and
excluding the other party.”

As stated above, on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under
Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall
be followed, Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the subject
property of this case without plaintiff’s consent armed with bolo and
“panabas” and then proceeded to cut down different trees planted by
4
Please see footnote 1.
5
Georgia T. Estel vs. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr., G.R.
No. 174082, January 16, 2012.
6
G.R. NO. 152992 July 28, 2005.
his late parents Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without
permit from Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), burned it and cleaned the area.

Hence, it is very clear that I was in prior possession of the disputed

property and Jaime and Estelita deprived me of my possession by
force.

With due respect to Atty. Viray, it is my humble opinion that since as

stated in the above-stated jurisprudence that “the fact that the
petitioner possesses a Torrens Title does not automatically give
her unbridled authority to immediately wrest possession. It goes
without saying that even the owner of the property cannot wrest
possession from its current possessor.” still I cannot dispossess
Estelita and all other persons claiming rights under her on the land
dispute without undergoing judicial process even if the court will
annul and then reconvey the title of Estelita to me. Thus, “There
are three (3) remedies available to one who has been
dispossessed of property: (I) an action for ejectment to recover
possession, whether for unlawful detainer or forcible entry;
(2) accion publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion, or a plenary
action to recover the right of · possession; and (3) accion
reivindicatoria, or an action to recover ownership. 7”

“There is forum shopping when a party files different pleadings in

different tribunals, despite having the same "identit[ies] of parties, rights
or causes of action, and reliefs sought."46 Consistent with the
principle of fair play, parties are prohibited from seeking the same relief
in multiple forums in the hope of obtaining a favorable judgment. The
rule against forum shopping likewise fulfills an administrative purpose
as it prevents conflicting decisions by different tribunals on the same
issue.8”

In the case at bar, what I am invoking in Action for Forcible Entry is my right
to possess the subject property being the actual occupant and possessor of
said lot before Estelita and Jaime with their cohorts illegally entered said lot
by force. While in Annulment of Title, what I am invoking is my right to due
7
Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs Spouses Anastacio Perlabarbarona, G.R. No. 195814,
April 4, 2018.
8
Ibid.
process since “An action for annulment of title questions the validity of the
title because of lack of due process of law. There is an allegation of nullity
in the procedure and thus the invalidity of the title that is issued” 9.

Moreover, the relief sought in an Action for Forcible Entry is to get a

declaration from court that the plaintiff has a better right to possess the
subject property. While in Annulment of Title is a declaration from court that
the defendant’s certificate of title is null and void.

Considering the premises, there is no forum shopping if I will file Action for
Forcible Entry and then later on I will file Annulment of Title.

It is also humbly submitted that if the court will declare that I am and my
predecessor in interests are the rightful possessor of the property, it is a
plus factor to me in my complaint for annulment of title and
reconveyance since “Tax receipts and declarations are prima
facie proofs of ownership or possession of the property for which such
taxes have been paid. Coupled with proof of actual possession of the
property, they may become the basis of a claim for ownership. By
acquisitive prescription, possession in the concept of owner — public,
adverse, peaceful and uninterrupted — may be converted to
ownership.” (Cequena et. al. vs. Bolante, G.R. No. 137944   April 6,
2000).

The undersigned is paying taxes of the lot in dispute which is registered

under the name of my great grandfather for tax purposes and as stated
above, for more than fifty years our possession was undisturbed until
Estelita with her cohorts illegally entered said lot. Copy of tax clearance
is hereto attached as Annex “C”.

Considering the above-stated arguments, it is very clear that Atty.

Viray’s legal opinions that the court will just dismissed my
complaint for action for forcible entry because Estelita has a
certificate of title covering the land in dispute and I will be
committing forum shopping if I will file a complaint for action for
forcible entry and then annulment of title is misplaced. Hence, it is
my humble opinion that stating the above-mentioned arguments does
not mean that I do not trust Atty. Viray anymore. In stating the above-
9
Sps. Roberto Aboitiz and Maria Cristina Cabarrus vs. Sps. Peter L. Po and Victoria
Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5, 2017.
mentioned arguments, I am only correcting her wrong appreciation of
the law which your office affirmed when I called it to seek legal
advice.

Considering that Atty. Viray’s reasons why she does not agree to file
a complaint for action for forcible entry first are not in accordance
to law, it is humbly submitted that Atty. Viray’s legal advice is not
considered proper advice. Hence, Article 4 (5), Chapter IX is not
applicable in my case.

It is worthy to mentioned that Atty. Viray REFUSED to sign the complaint

that she prepared and advised me to sign it by myself and Atty. Viray
made a reservation on my behalf for my right to file Recovery of
Possession in my complaint for Perjury against Estelita that she
prepared. Copies of the complaints that Atty. Viray prepared are hereto
attached as Annex “D” and “E” respectively.

Since Atty. Natividad is allowing me to peruse (copy of his e-mail to

me is hereto attached as Annex “F”) the complaint that Atty. Viray
prepared and most importantly Atty. Viray told me to sign my
complaint by myself, it is my humble opinion that they are giving
me an authority to edit my complaint.

Considering the above-mentioned arguments, I would like to request for

legal opinion regarding the following issues, to wit:

1. Whether or not I do not trust Atty. Viray anymore when I edited

the complaint that she prepared in behalf of me which I will sign
by myself as per her instruction during my cellphone
conversation with her?

2. Whether or not if I will file an Action for Forcible Entry instead of

Annulment of Title, my complaint for Forcible Entry will be
DISMISSED by the court because Estelita has certificate of title
under her name covering the subject property and I will be
committing forum shopping if I will file an Action for Forcible Entry
and then Annulment of Title is a proper advice?
 3. Whether or not editing the complaint that Atty. Viray’s prepared in
behalf of me falls under Article 4 (5), Chapter IX of 2016 Amended
PAO Operations Manual even if Atty. Natividad allowed me to
peruse said complaint and Atty. Viray told me to sign said
complaint by myself?

4. Whether or not it is proper to file an annulment of title instead of

an Action for Forcible Entry even if I cannot dispossess Estelita
Delizo and other persons claiming under her rights despite
that the title of Estelita will annul by the court?

5. Whether or not it is proper to file an Action for Forcible Entry first

for me to recover my possession and enjoy all the fruits of my
property while my complaint for annulment of title is ongoing and
most importantly “Tax receipts and declarations are prima
facie proofs of ownership or possession of the property for which
such taxes have been paid. Coupled with proof of actual
possession of the property, they may become the basis of a
claim for ownership. By acquisitive prescription, possession in
the concept of owner — public, adverse, peaceful and
uninterrupted — may be converted to ownership.” (Cequena et.
al. vs. Bolante, G.R. No. 137944   April 6, 2000)?

When the legal division of Professional Regulation Commission (PRC,

for brevity) seek legal opinion to Atty. Marlon Buan if as a PAO client, I
am entitled for free Transcript of Stenographer Notes, the latter
endorsed the letter of PRC to your office because according to him it is
your office that has an authority to give legal opinion. Hence, I hope that
this time your office will not endorse this letter to anyone anymore.

Very truly yours,

MARIANO P. FLORES