The RTC declared that the sale of the subject property by the spouses Acaylar to Harayo vested

ownership and possession of said property in the latter.

The more plausible and logical scenario would be that Acaylar Jr. was already occupying the
subject property prior to the sale. Acaylar Jr., in gathering the coconut fruits and other crops,
cutting grasses, and domesticating animals on the subject property, even after its sale to
Harayo on September 14, 2004, was only continuing to exercise acts of possession over the
subject property as he had done in years before.
The SC had long settled that the only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment
proceedings is - who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property, that is,
possession de facto; and they should not involve the question of ownership or of possession de
jure, which is to be settled in the proper court and in a proper action.
In conclusion, since Acaylar Jr. was in prior physical possession of the subject property, Harayo
has no cause of action against him for forcible entry. Neither can we treat Harayos case
against Acaylar Jr. as one for unlawful detainer absent the jurisdictional requirement of demand
to vacate made upon Acaylar Jr..

to recover from the defendants the possession of a certain parcel of

land described in the second paragraph of the complaint, in an action
of forcible entry and detainer.

Since the plaintiff preferred to exercise together in a single complaint of action for recovery the
action for possession and the action of recovering title, he should have waited for the period of one
year to elapse from the date when the cause of action arose before filing his complaint in this court,
because the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over an action for recovery until after the
expiration of the time prescribed by section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Bejar vs caluag

who has better possession of the disputed property

Here, the case is for unlawful detainer. ---despite demand, respondent failed and still
fails to vacate the premises. From the records, it appears that Almario Bejar filed his
complaint within one year from the date of his last demand upon respondent to
vacate the contested portion of the land..A suit for unlawful detainer will prosper
if the complaint sufficiently alleges that there is a withholding of possession or
refusal to vacate the property by a defendant.[10]The cause of action arises from the
expiration or termination of the defendants right to continue possession which is
upon plaintiffs demand to vacate the premises. The complaint for unlawful
detainer must then be instituted within one year from the date of the last
demand.[11] All these incidents are present in the instant case.

Otherwise put, the plaintiff alleges ownership of real property and prays for
recovery of such ownership. Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, two things must
be alleged and proven in an accion reinvidicatoria: (1) the identity of the property
and (2) plaintiffs title to it. Sole and exclusive jurisdiction over cases
for accion reinvidicatoria is vested in the RTC.