SC: Prior Possession, Not Ownership, Matters in Forcible Entry Cases

March 3, 2025

The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that in forcible entry cases, the key issue is who had prior physical possession of the property – not ownership.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the SC’s First Division ordered respondents Ernie “Toto” Castillo et al. to vacate a parcel of land in Barangay Matina, Davao City (Lot 1957), after finding that they had forcibly entered the property.

The case stemmed from a complaint for forcible entry filed by Edgar M. Rico (Rico), who claimed he was in possession of the property by virtue of his free patent application for Lot 1957 with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.  He claimed that on October 11, 2005, the respondents illegally entered the property by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.

Both the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Rico, confirming his prior possession. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, citing a previous unlawful detainer case where Rico had been ordered to vacate the property in favor of its titled owner, Milagros Villa-Abrille.

The SC disagreed with the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that forcible entry cases are about physical possession, not legal ownership.

In forcible entry cases, persons are deprived of physical possession of land by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. To prove forcible entry, a complainant must show that (a) they have prior physical possession of the property; (b) they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and (c) the action was filed within one year from the time they learned that they lost physical possession of the property.

The only issue in forcible entry cases is whether the claimant has proved prior physical possession of the contested property.

Since Rico had established his prior possession, the SC ruled in his favor and ordered the respondents to vacate the property. The SC stressed that issues of ownership and title are irrelevant in forcible entry cases.  However, the question of ownership may be temporarily addressed if it is raised by the parties and is necessary to determine who has the better right of possession. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 215166 (Edgar M. Rico v. Ernie “Toto” Castillo, July 23, 2024) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/215166-edgar-m-rico-vs-ernie-toto-castillo-pifiano-jumo-gerry-villegas-alfrance-alicante-felix-yagao-john-does-and-marilou-lopez-a-k-a-ma-loreto-v-abella-lopez/.