Javier vs Lomuntad

Facts: Javiers heirs(petitioners) contented that since Javier was born, he has lived in the residential
house erected thereon. Javiers heirs, continued their possession over the same. despite the petitioners
vigorous objections, respondent Lumontad gained entry into the subject land and started to build a two
(2)-storey building on one of the lots. Thus, petitioners were constrained to file against respondent
the instant forcible entry complaint plus rent as reasonable compensation. Evidence presented by
plaintiff were Tax declarations. It appears that the land subject of the action is divided into two lots. One
TD covers whole lot while the other one covers house only. MTC and RTC finds that the case is not one
for FE. The CA finds otherwise.

Issue: WON the case is one for forcible entry

Held:
In forcible entry, the complaint must necessarily allege that one in physical possession of a land
or building has been deprived of that possession by another through force, intimidation, threat, strategy
or stealth. It is not essential, however, that the complaint should expressly employ the language of the
law, but it would suffice that facts are set up showing that dispossession took place under said
conditions. In other words, the plaintiff must allege that he, prior to the defendants act of dispossession
by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, had been in prior physical possession of the property.
This requirement is jurisdictional, and as long as the allegations demonstrate a cause of action for
forcible entry, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter." Here, the petitioners established
that there has been prior physical possession thru the deceased Javier. Furthermore, The "how"
(through unlawful entry and the construction of the subject building), "when" (March 26, 2007), and
"where" (a 150 sq. m. portion of the subject land) of the dispossession all appear on the face of the
complaint. Hence, a prima facie case of forcible entry is present and should be accepted within the
jurisdiction of the lower court.

Pwede na dili isulat: Although the Court finds that the complaint was indeed one for forcible
entry, petitioners case nonetheless fails to impress on the merits. , considering that he had failed to
justify his right to the de facto possession (physical or material possession) of the disputed premises. or
the Tax Declaration from which petitioner hinges his right to the de facto possession of the subject land,
only covers his house and not the entire land itself. Nothing appears on record to show that he has the
right to the de facto possession of the land occupied by Lomuntad.