Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

German Management & Services, Inc. V Court of Appeals: Facts

Petitioners tried to forcibly evict farmers who had occupied and cultivated land for 12-15 years. The farmers filed a forcible entry case. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the farmers, finding that as the parties in actual possession, they were entitled to file a forcible entry case regardless of the legality of their possession or claims of ownership from others. Forcible entry cases determine possession, not ownership. The court affirmed that possession cannot be acquired through force, and those believing they have a claim to property must pursue legal action, not self-help.

Uploaded by

Nikko Sterling
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views2 pages

German Management & Services, Inc. V Court of Appeals: Facts

Petitioners tried to forcibly evict farmers who had occupied and cultivated land for 12-15 years. The farmers filed a forcible entry case. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the farmers, finding that as the parties in actual possession, they were entitled to file a forcible entry case regardless of the legality of their possession or claims of ownership from others. Forcible entry cases determine possession, not ownership. The court affirmed that possession cannot be acquired through force, and those believing they have a claim to property must pursue legal action, not self-help.

Uploaded by

Nikko Sterling
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC.

V
COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are owners of the land situated in sitio
Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal (the land being disputed in the case at bar.) The spouses Jose
executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management Services to develop
their property. They have already acquired the proper permits to do so but they discovered that the land
was occupied by the respondent with 20 other farmers (members of the Concerned of Farmers
Association.) These farmers have occupied the land for the last twelve to fifteen years prior to the
issuance of the permits and they already have their crops all over the property. In short, they are in actual
possession of the land.

Petitioners tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and; demolish and bulldoze their crops and property.
The respondents filed in CFI because they were deprived of their property without due process of law by
trespassing, demolishing and bulldozing their crops and property situated in the land. CFI and RTC
denied it but CA reversed the decision. Petitioners tried to appeal the decision in CA but were denied thus
this appeal

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are entitled to file a forcible entry case against petitioner?
RULING:
YES, they are entitled to file a forcible entry case! Since private respondents were in actual possession of
the property at the time they were forcibly ejected by petitioner, private respondents have a right to
commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the legality or illegality of possession.
Private respondents, as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner
because ownership is not in issue. Forcible entry is merely a quieting process and never determines the
actual title to an estate. Title is not involved, only actual possession. It is undisputed that private
respondents were in possession of the property and not the petitioners nor the spouses Jose. Although
the petitioners have a valid claim over ownership this does not in any way justify their act of forcible
entry. It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property the party in
peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Thus, a party
who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.Whatever
may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that
entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The doctrine of self help, which the petitioners were using to
justify their actions, are not applicable in the case because it can only be exercised at the time of actual or
threatened dispossession which is absent in the case at bar (in fact they are the ones who are
threatening to remove the respondents with the use of force.) Article 536 basically tells us that the owner
or a person who has a better right over the land must resort to judicial means to recover the property from
another person who possesses the land.

When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of
property. As clearly stated in Article 536- In no case may possession be acquired through force or
intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or
right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court, if holder
should refuse to deliver the thing.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy