The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (Article 429, Civil Code) Private Respondents Ernesto Villeza et al were deprived of their property without due process of law by:
(1) forcibly removing and destroying the barbed wire fence
enclosing their farmholdings without notice; (2) bulldozing the rice, corn fruit bearing trees and other crops of private respondents by means of force, violence and intimidation, in violation of P.D. 1038 and (3) trespassing, coercing and threatening to harass, remove and eject private respondents from their respective farmholdings in violation of P.D. Nos. 316, 583, 815, and 1028. 1 The spouses Manuel and Cynthia Jose contracted with German Management and Services, Inc. for the latter to develop their landholdings into a residential subdivision.
German Management started the project in February 1983,
however, they discovered that the land was being possessed by Ernesto Villeza et al who were the farmers tilling the said land at that time. German Management spoke with Villeza et al but the farmers refused to vacate the land as the farmers claimed that they have been occupying the land for twelve years
Nevertheless, German Management went on to develop the
property and demolished the properties of the farmers without acquiring a court order. In turn, Erneto Villeza et al filed a case of forcible entry against German Management. The Doctrine of Self-help stated in Article 429 is not applicable because at the time when German Management excluded the farmers, theres no longer an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation. That actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion by the farmers have already lapsed 12 years ago when they began occupying the said land. In fact, they were already peaceably farming the land. In the case at bar, it is undisputed that at the time German Management entered the property, Ernesto Villeza et al were already in possession thereof. There is no evidence that the spouses Jose were ever in possession of the subject property. On the contrary, Respondents Ernesto et al peaceable possession was manifested by the fact that they even planted rice, corn and fruit bearing trees twelve to fifteen years prior to German Managements act of destroying their crops.
Moreover, German Management may validly claim ownership
based on the muniments of title it presented, such evidence does not responsively address the issue of prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case.
When possession has already been lost, the owner must
resort to judicial process for the recovery of property.