CASE 2012-0069: HEIRS OF ROGELIO ISIP, SR., NAMELY: CELEDONIA, ROLANDO, ROGELIO, .JR., ALL SURNAMED ISIP, AND IRENE ISIP-SILVESTRE, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ROLANDO ISIP VS. RODOLFO QUINTOS, RODOLFO DE GUZMAN AND ISAGANI ISIP, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME RONIRO ENTERPRISES COMPANY (G.R. NO. 172008, 01 AUGUST 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECT/S: FORCIBLE ENTRY, FACTS NOT TRIED CANNOT BE TAKEN UP ON APPEAL. (BRIEF TITLE: HEIRS OF ROGELIO ISIP SR. VS. QUINTOS ET AL.)
=========================
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
PONTINO OWNS A LOT. ROGELIO SR. TOOK POSESSION OF THE LOT. PONTINO SOLD HIS LOT TO DATU BUT DATU FAILED TO PAY THE FULL PRICE. DESPITE NON-PAYMENT OF THE FULL PRICE, DATU SOLD THE LOT TO TOYO KEIKI WHO EMPLOYED ROGELIO SR. TO MANAGE ITS WATER SYSTEM PUT UP IN SAID LOT. THE LOT WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD FROM PONTINO TO DE GUZMAN. DE GUZMAN WITH RESPONDENTS PUT UP THE RONIRO ENTERPRISES WHICH TOOK THE WATER SYSTEM. ROGELIO SR. DIED BUT HIS HEIRS WERE STILL OCCUPYING THE LOT. RESPONDENTS ENTICED THE HEIRS TO PUT UP A CAR REPAIR SHOP TO UNDERTAKE REPAIRS FOR AN INSURANCE COMPANY. ON THE PRETEXT BY RESPONDENTS THAT DURING AN INSPECTION BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY THE HEIRS MUST FIRST VACATE THE PROPERTY, THE HEIRS VACATED THE PROPERTY. WHEN THEY CAME BACK THEY WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED BY RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE PREMISES. PETITIONER FILED AN EJECTMENT CASE ON GROUND OF FORCIBLE ENTRY.
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT RESPONDENTS DEPRIVED THEM OF THE POSSESSION OF THEIR LOT THROUGH DECEIT, STRATEGY, AND STEALTH. THEY AVER THAT RESPONDENTS DECEIVED THEM TO TEMPORARILY VACATE THE PREMISES ON THE PRETEXT THAT THEY MUST CONVINCE THE INSURANCE INSPECTORS THAT THE PREMISES ARE BEING USED SOLELY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THEY WERE THUS ALLEGEDLY TRICKED TO MOVE OUT AND ONCE THE RESPONDENTS ACHIEVED THEIR GOAL, THEY WERE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING THE PREMISES BY POSTING SECURITY GUARDS AT THE GATES.
DID RESPONDENTS COMMIT FORCIBLE ENTRY?
NO. THERE IS FORCIBLE ENTRY IF POSSESSION IS ILLEGAL FROM THE BEGINNING. RESPONDENTS HAVE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. THEIR POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IS THEREFORE NOT ILLEGAL. THUS, THEY DID NOT COMMIT FORCIBLE ENTRY DESPITE THEIR ALLEGED STRATEGY.
Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a case of forcible entry may be filed by, “a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth x x x.” In cases of forcible entry, “the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PETITIONERS FURTHER ASSERT THAT THE LOT THEY OCCUPY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LOT OCCUPIED BY THE RESPONDENTS. THEY CLAIM THAT THEIR LOT IS LOCATED AT NO. 2, BARRAMEDA ST., UPPER BICUTAN, TAGUIG WHILE THE LOT OCCUPIED BY THE RESPONDENTS IS LOCATED IN LOWER BICUTAN.
CAN SC INQUIRE INTO SUCH FACT?
NO. THE POINT RAISED BY THE [PETITIONERS] X X X IN RESPECT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THE CONTROVERSY MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED ANYMORE AT THIS POINT SINCE IT WAS NEVER RAISED AS AN ISSUE IN THEIR APPEAL, NAY EVEN WHEN THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THE COURT A QUO. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT A TRIER OF FACTS. ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW MAY BE ENTERTAINED SUBJECT ONLY TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, NONE OF WHICH ARE PRESENT IN THE INSTANT PETITION.
IT IS THE FUNCTION OF TRIAL COURTS TO RESOLVE ACTUAL ISSUES WHOSE FINDINGS ON THESE MATTERS ARE ACCORDED RESPECT AND CONSIDERED BINDING BY THE SUPREME COURT ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT. IN THIS CASE, THE METC, THE RTC AND THE CA ARE ONE IN THEIR FINDINGS THAT RESPONDENTS DID NOT FORCIBLY ENTER THE SUBJECT PREMISES. ALL THREE TRIBUNALS FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS’ POSSESSION IS LAWFUL AND LEGAL FROM THE BEGINNING.
TO READ THE CASE PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW:
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 