4

CASE ANALYSIS/STUDY
Date
To Atty. Bernadette C. Mendoza
From Carlo Jose L. Bactol
Module 2
1. Spouses Ocampo v. Heirs of Dionisio, G.R. No. 191101, 2014-10-01
A. The petitioner contended that the present complaint must be dismissed on
ground of res judicata. The petitioners maintained that the subject parcel of
land is owned by Carmelita, having acquired the same through inheritance and
that they have been in possession thereof since 1969.
B. The MTC dismissed the complaint for recovery of possession filed by the
respondents on the ground of res judicata. In contrast, the RTC ruled that the
MTC erred in dismissing the respondents' complaint for recovery of
possession of the subject property solely on res judicata. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the RTC Decision.
C. The Court denied the petition. The Court laid down the principle of Res
judicata, to wit: For res judicata under the first concept, bar by prior judgment,
to apply, the following requisites must concur, viz: (a) finality of the former
judgment; (b) the Court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there
must be, between the first and second actions, the identity of parties, subject
matter and causes of action. In the second issue, the Court held that the
respondents proved that they have a superior right over the subject property as
against the petitioners. It is undisputed that the subject property is indeed
covered by OCT No. M-4559, which is registered in the name of Dionisio, the
respondents' predecessor-in-interest. In the last issue, the Court held that, as
owners of the subject property, the respondents could recover the possession
thereof from any person illegally occupying their property. This right is
imprescriptible.
D. The party must prove that they have a superior right over the subject property
against others.
E. In an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the only issue is
possession in fact, or physical possession of real property, independently of
any claim of ownership that either party may put forth in pleading.

2. Spouses Sambalilo v. Spouses Llarenas, G.R. No. 222685, 2017-06-21

A. The petitioners availed of the dissolution of the injunction and the complaint
for forcible entry. They filed this complaint because of the reason that whether
 4

the improvements, specifically the concrete fence and the framework of a

future house, introduced by the petitioners disturbed respondents' possession
of the land in question.
B. The MTCC favored Spouses Llarenas, it explained that Sps. Llarenas were
able to prove prior physical possession of the contested property. The RTC
reversed the MTCC decision, it pointed out that based on the respective sketch
plans of the parties, there was consensus that the alleged illegal structures
were located on the western side of the pathway when facing the seashore. The
CA overruled the RTC decision and reinstated the MTCC decision, it held that
Sps. Llarenas were able to establish that they were in prior physical possession
of Cadastral Lot 2692-F.
C. The Court granted the petition. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed
and set aside. The Regional Trial Court decision was reinstated. The Court
ruled among others, the view of petitioners that their sketch plan was more
credible than that of respondents in as much as the former was consistent with
the boundaries of the parcels of land as depicted in respondents' own
documentary evidence. Further, the Court ruled that the RTC was also correct
when it held that the tax declaration enjoys the presumption of regularity, and
must be respected, unless rebutted by contrary evidence which, this case,
respondents miserably failed to adduce. Lastly, respondents' claim of actual
physical possession of the questioned land has no leg to stand. Anent the issue
of forcible entry, the daughter’s claim of stealthy intrusion of petitioners over
their land by forcibly removing the steel gate was debunked by the Minutes of
conciliation meeting before the Office of the Barangay of Matobato.
D. They must allege that they were deprived of possession either by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. And, prove that they have prior
physical possession of the property.
E. In an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the only issue is
possession in fact, or physical possession of real property, independently of
any claim of ownership that either party may put forth in pleading.