BAES vs LUTHERAN CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES

Petitioners- Rev.Elmer Baes, Spouses Rev. Del Rosario, Sps. Rev.Ramon

Respondents- Lutheran Church in the Philippines (LCP), Oscar Almazan, James Cerdenola, Luis Aoas,
Edwino Mercado, Antonio Reyes and CA.

FACTS:

- In 1990, members of the LCP filed an action against its President Thomas Batong and 6 other member
of the Board of Directors to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). As such, this resulted in the
division of the LCP community into 2 factions:

*Batong/Saguilayan group- Petitioners are part of

*Ladlad/Almazan group- Respondents

- SEC issued a writ of the preliminary injunction against Batong and his group.

- By virtue of the SEC injunction, Respondent with the aid of PNP and DILG tried to dispossess petitioners
if the property tha they are residing (NOTE: as previous clergymen they were given the privilege by LCP
to occupy the residential houses owned by the LCP)

-Petitioners refused to leave the premise. So, respondents padlocked the maingate and stationed
security guards to prevent petitners and their families to from going in and out of the property.

-A month after, Petitioners Del Rosario and Baes wrote letters to the new LCP president Ladlad to
reconsider and to allow them to stay until such time they can find their families new homes. -Eventually,
all three petitioners left the premises and filed an action for forcible entry with prayer for issuance of
TRO and preliminary mandatory injunction against respondents.

- MTC ruled that there was ni force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth so forcivle entry case
dismissed.

-RTC reversed MTC decision ordering respondents to restore property to Petitioners

-Upon appeal, CA reversed RTC decision stating that while respondent committed acts contrary to
what's sanctioned by laws, petitioners are not entitled to favorable judgment in their forcible entry case
as evidence show in their letters that they were willing to vacate the premises.

ISSUE:

Were petitioners removed from the premises by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth?
RULING:

- Yes, they were. MTC erred in finding that there was no forcible entry reasoning that the petitioners
expressed willingness to vacate the premises.

- Said leistters do not negate the INITIAL use of force by respondents which constituted forcible entry. It
is undisputed that respondents owned the property occupied by petitioners, still their use of force in
evicting petitioners was not justified.

- Owner who has title over the property cannot take the law into his own hands to regain possession of
the said property. He must go to court.

- Furthermore, respondents cannot justify their forcible entry in the premises occupied by oetitioners by
claiming that petitioners have no valid right to the continued possession of the property because they
should have filed the appropriate unlawful detainer case against them instead of forcing them out of the
premises.

DECISION:

- SC ordered respondent to vacate, surrender and restore possession of questioned premises to Del
Rosario and San Ramon

-SC didn't grant Baes restoration of the subject premises because they lost their cause of action to ask
for restitution having transferred to another property.