Marcela M. Dela Cruz, Petitioner, V. Antonio Q. Hermano
Marcela M. Dela Cruz, Petitioner, V. Antonio Q. Hermano
Marcela M. Dela Cruz, Petitioner, V. Antonio Q. Hermano
FACTS: Respondents Antonio Hermano and his wife Guided by the foregoing, the Court finds that the proofs submitted by
RemediosHermano were the registered and lawful owners of a house respondents only established possession flowing from ownership.
and lot in Tagaytay City. Although respondents have claimed from the inception of the
controversy up to now that they are using the property as their
On September 1, 2001, petitioner Marcela M. Dela Cruz occupied and vacation house, that claim is not substantiated by any corroborative
possessed the questioned property pursuant to the alleged evidence. On the other hand, petitioners claim that she started
Memorandum of Agreement between her and a certain Don Mario occupying the property in March 2001, and not in September of that
Enciso Benitez, without the authority and consent of the Hermanos. year as Antonio alleged in his Complaint, was corroborated by the
On September 27, 2001, A. Hermano, through a counsel, sent a formal Affidavitof petitioners caretaker. Respondents did not present any
demand letter to Dela Cruz to vacate and turn over the possession of evidence to controvert that affidavit.
the property and to pay P 20,000 a month as rent starting September
1, 2001. Therefore, respondents failed to discharge their burden of proving the
element of prior physical possession. Their uncorroborated claim of
Respondent filed an ejectment case against the petitioner at the MTCC; that fact, even if made under oath, is self-serving. It does not amount
however, the court dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction. The to preponderant evidence, which simply means that which is of greater
court also stated that respondents proper remedy should be an action weight or is more convincing than evidence that is offered in
for recovery and not of a summary proceeding for ejectment, because opposition.
there was no showing of forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
As noted at the outset, it bears stressing that the Court is not a trier of
Respondent appealed the decision at the RTC; the said court, however, facts. However, the conflicting findings of fact of the MTCC and the
affirmed the decision of the lower court entoto. The same filed a RTC, on the one hand, and the CA on the other, compelled us to revisit
petition for review at the CA, of which, granted the petition, reversed the records of this case for the proper dispensation of
and set aside the decision of RTC. Furthermore, the court rendered a justice. Moreover, it must be stressed that the Courts pronouncements
decision declaring Hermano as the lawful possessor of the property in this case are without prejudice to the parties right to pursue the
and order Dela Cruz to vacate the same. With the CAs decision, appropriate remedy.
petitioner filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent has adequately pleaded and proved hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court
a case of forcible entry. of Appeals are REVERSED, and the Decision of the MTCC dismissing
the Complaint against petitioner is REINSTATED.
HELD: The burden of sufficiently alleging prior physical possession
carries with it the concomitant burden of establishing ones case by a
preponderance of evidence. To be able to do so, respondents herein
must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness
of that of petitioner. It is not enough that the allegations of a
complaint make out a case for forcible entry. The plaintiff must prove
prior physical possession. It is the basis of the security accorded by law
to a prior occupant of a property until a person with a better right
acquires possession thereof.