Vicedo, Edmartpol C.

Civil Law Review 1- 4D

German Management and Services vs. CA

177 SCRA 495(G.R. No. 76217), September 14, 1989

Q:

Spouses Marky Bilar and Mary Bilar, who are residents of Richmond, Virginia, USA,
owns a large parcel of land, with an area of 11 hectares, located in BFRV, Las Pinas
City. The subject land was originally registered on August 6, 1948 in the Office of the
Register of Deeds Las Pinas City as OCT 18, pursuant to a Homestead Patent granted
by the President of the Philippines on 28 July 1948. On 25 February 1982, spouses Bi-
lar executed a special power of attorney authorizing Slovakian Management Services
(“Slovakian Mgt”) to develop their property into a residential subdivision. Consequently,
the Slovakian Mgt obtained Development Permit 000636 from the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission for said development. Finding that part of the property was oc-
cupied by Geranal and Villanueza and 21 other persons, Slovakian Mgt informed the
occupants to vacate the premises but the latter refused. Slovakian Mgt proceeded with
the development of the subject property which included the portions occupied and culti-
vated by Genaral and others. Slovakian Mgt forcibly removed and destroyed the barbed
wire fence enclosing their farmholdings without notice and bulldozing the rice, corn, fruit
bearing trees and other crops that they planted by means of force, violence and intimi-
dation. On the action filed by Genaral et. al for forcible entry against Slovakian Mgt, the
latter invoked its right of self-help under Art. 429 of the NCC. Rule on Slovakian Mgt’s
argument.

A:

The application of doctrine of self-help by Slovakian Mgt. in this instant problem is not
correct.

The justification that the drastic action of bulldozing and destroying the crops of the prior
possessor on the basis of the doctrine of self help (enunciated in Article 429 NCC) is
unavailing because the such doctrine can only be exercised at the time of actual or
threatened dispossession, which is absent in the present case. When possession has
already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of property.
This is clear from Article 536 New Civil Code which provides that "in no case may pos-
session be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who
objects thereto. He, who believes that he has an action or right to deprive another of the
holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should
refuse to deliver the thing.”

A party who can prove prior possession, whatever may be the character of such pos-
session, has the security that entitles him to recover such possession or to remain on
the property even against the owner himself until he is lawfully ejected by accion publi-
ciana or accion reivindicatoria.