Case Digest: Villondo vs. Quijano, G.R. No. 173606. December 3, 2012.

CASE TITLE:  Villondo vs. Quijano
GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 173606. December 3, 2012.
PONENTE: Del Castillo, J.
CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: MTCC - Complaint for forcible entry with preliminary mandatory injunction RTC - Appeal CA - Appeal
FACTS: Valeriana Villondo filed a complaint for forcible entry against Carmen Quijano and others. MTCC:  Ruled in favor of Valeriana, ordering respondents to vacate the land and pay damages. RTC: Reversed the MTCC's decision, stating that Valeriana lacked cause of action as she was not the real party-in-interest. The RTC found that Romualdo Villondo, not Valeriana, was the real party-in-interest named in the Certificate of Stewardship. CA: Affirmed the RTC's decision.
ISSUE: Whether Valeriana is a real party-in-interest in the forcible entry case she filed. YES
ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES
PETITIONER	RESPONDENTS
Valeriana claimed that Carmen and her farm laborers intruded into her land, destroyed plants, harvested crops, built a hut, fenced off the area, and posted a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Valeriana asserted her right to the land based on a Certificate of Stewardship awarded to her deceased husband, Daniel Villondo, and their prior possession of the land.	Carmen countered that the land was purchased by her parents in 1948 and submitted tax declarations over the land. Respondents argued that Valeriana lacked legal standing to sue since the named tiller in the Certificate of Stewardship, "Daniel T. Villondo," is actually Valeriana's son, Romualdo Villondo.
PREVAILING PARTY:  Villondo
DECISION/DOCTRINE: Notably, even public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases as it has already been held that ejectment proceedings may involve all kinds of land. Thus, in the case at bench, while the parties are fighting over the possession of a government land, the courts below are not deprived of jurisdiction to render judgment thereon. Courts must resolve the issue of possession even if the parties to the ejectment suit are mere informal settlers. For a court to restore possession, two things must be proven in a forcible entry case: prior physical possession of the property and deprivation of the property by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.  "Possession de facto, [i.e., the physical possession of a property,] and not possession de jure is the only issue in a forcible entry case. This rule holds true regardless of the character of a party’s possession, provided that he has in his favor priority in time. x x x" As used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, ‘possession’ refers to "physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law." Here, Valeriana is one of those in prior physical possession of the land who was eventually dispossessed. Carmen failed to present evidence that she was in actual physical possession of the land she claims. Her "tax declarations are not conclusive proofs of ownership, or even of possession." They only constitute proofs of a claim of title over the declared property. Her acts betray her claim of prior possession. Her counsel wrote Valeriana’s son Esteban and demanded that the subject land be vacated. Carmen had to seek help from the authorities in order to fence the lot. Furthermore, by filing criminal cases for grave threats and grave coercion, she herself acknowledged that Valeriana, together with Esteban, another son and daughter-in-law, were the ones occupying the subject property and who allegedly prevented her from conducting a land survey. These circumstances are indicative of the Villondo family’s possession of the premises. With this in mind, is Valeriana the appropriate party to file a forcible entry case against the respondents? We rule that the CA has no reason to withhold the relief she prays for on the ground of a lack of cause of action. "A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit." As we have explained: ‘Interest’ within the meaning of the rules means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. A real party-in interest is one who has a legal right. x x x The action must be brought by the person who, by substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced. x x x44 1âwphi1 Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court specifies who may be the plaintiff in an action for forcible entry, viz: Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. - x x x 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.  Sans the presence of the awardee of the Certificate of Stewardship, the provision clearly allows Valeriana to institute the action for the recovery of the physical possession of the property against the alleged usurper. She has a right or interest to protect as she was the one dispossessed and thus, she can file the action for forcible entry. Any judgment rendered by the courts below in the forcible entry action will bind and definitely affect her claim to possess the subject property. The fact that Valeriana is not the holder of the Certificate of Stewardship is not in issue in a forcible entry case. This matter already delves into the character of her possession. We emphasize that in ejectment suits, it does not even matter if the party’s title to the property is questionable. The MTCC correctly considered Valeriana as a real party-in-interest and correctly delved strictly with the issue of physical possession. Notably, the CA, other than dismissing the case for lack of cause of action, did not seem to dispute the MTCC’s factual finding of Valeriana’s prior physical possession. Absent any evidence of respondents’ prior physical possession. Valeriana, who has cogently convinced us that she was dispossessed of the land by force is entitled to stay on the property until she is lawfully ejected by others who can prove in a separate proceeding that they have a better right. We then end by highlighting the principle behind ejectment proceedings: xxx Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.  WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed March 31, 2005 Decision and July 10, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70734 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Cebu, Branch 5, is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.