Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 38
Maddela, Quirino
SPOUSES ANTONIO BARRIENTOS
AND CARIDAD R. BARRIENTOS,
Plaintiffs/Appellants,
versus

CIVIL CASE NO. 38-096

FOR: FORCIBLE ENTRY
WITH DAMAGES
(Appealed from MCTC:
Civil Case No. 561)

FERDINAND BARRIENTOS, CHITO

BARRIENTOS, EVELYN RAMOSBARRIENTOS
A.K.A.
LINDA
BARRIENTOS, AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS
CLAIMING RIGHTS
UNDER THEM,
Defendants/Appellees.
x-----------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER
This resolves Plaintiffs/Appellants Appeal of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts November 28, 2014 Order dismissing their
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The memorandum on appeal
argued that all the essential requisites for filing an action for
forcible entry had been met by their complaint and that the MCTC
erred in ruling that the issue on ownership must first be resolved
before the issue who has a better right to possess could be
resolved.
The Complaint alleged that: 1] Plaintiffs/Appellants bought
the subject property for P250,000.00 from Evelyn Barrientos with
the approval of her husband, Ferdinand Barrientos, in whose
name the said property was titled; 2] No formal deed of sale was
executed; 3] Plaintiffs/Appellants took possession of the property
and had been in possession of the property through their
caretaker from 1992 to July 2014; 4] On July 2014, Defendant
Ferdinand Barrientos entered their premises and took possession
of a portion of the subject property; and 5] On August and
September 2014, Ferdinand Barrientos cut down G-Melina trees
from the subject property.
The MCTC contends on page 3 of the appealed Order that,
Ferdinand Barrientos is still the registered owner of the lot as
admitted and alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, to the mind of this
Court as the torrens title holder over the subject lot he is entitled
to the possession thereof unless plaintiff claims otherwise not
through a proceeding of ejectment but by a recovery of
possession. It is settled rule that the person who has a Torrens
Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof. Further, as the
registered owner of the subject property, defendant is preferred
to possess it. The court of origin further reasoned on the last

page of the appealed Order that, Again in the instant case, the
issue on ownership should be settled first before the issue on who
has the better right to possess should gain ground because of the
utter failure of plaintiff to substantiate his claim over the
property. xxx It can be fairly assume that it could be the
defendant who tolerated the possession of the property to the
plaintiff and not vice versa since it was defendant who is the
registered owner.
The Court begs to differ with the MCTCs ruling. The
allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient to bestow
jurisdiction upon it.
The Supreme Court stated in the case of Hubert Nuez vs.
SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010
that, in actions for forcible entry xxx the following requisites are
essential for the MeTC's acquisition of jurisdiction over the case,
viz.: (a) the plaintiffs must allege their prior physical possession
of the property; (b) they must assert that they were deprived of
possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth; and, (c) the action must be filed within one (1) year from
the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their
deprivation of the physical possession of the property. It should
be noted that ownership is not an essential requisite to file an
action for forcible entry. As a general rule in forcible entry cases,
ownership or title is inconsequential; the primordial issue is
possession de facto and not possession de jure. The court,
however, may tackle the issue of ownership or title, if raised, if
this issue is indispensable in resolving the issue of possession
(Hacienda Bigaa, Inc., vs. Epifanio V. Chavez, G.R. No. 174160,
April 20, 2010).
All the requisite elements were alleged in the present
complaint: (a) Plaints/Appellants possessed the subject property
from 1992 to July 2014; (b) Defendant Ferdinand Barrientos
forcibly took possession of a portion of the property on July 2014
and cut down trees on August and September 2014; and (c) The
action for forcible entry was filed before the MCTC on November
26, 2014 which is within one year from July 2014.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed November
28, 2014 Order of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court is set aside.
Return the records of the case to the court of origin for further
proceedings.
Furnish all parties concerned a copy of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Maddela, Quirino, July 14, 2015.
MENRADO V. CORPUZ

Executive Judge