Good day!

On October 6, 2020, I sent an e-mail for Atty. Atty. Monna Lissa C. Monje-
Viray (Atty. Viray, for brevity) at Public Attorney’s Office-Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan District Office’s official e-mail address, requesting to check my
complaint-affidavit for Action for Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer
for Issuance of Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order and requesting for the necessary amendment of Trinidad
Fontanilla and Fedencia Andrada’s Judicial Affidavits.

When I called Atty. Viray on October 12, 2020 to follow-up her decision on
the aforementioned e-mail, Atty. Viray told me that if I will file Action for
Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of Title my complaint for Forcible
Entry will be DISMISSED by the court because Estelita has certificate
of title under her name covering the subject property which according
to her it is also the legal opinion of Atty. Florante Natividad, Deputy
Public Attorney of PAO-Urdaneta. The said statement of Atty. Viray was
confirmed to me by Atty. Natividad. Screen shots of our text conversations
are hereto attached as Annex “A” and “A-1”.

When I told her that I will also filed Annulment of Documents and Title
and Reconveyance, she told me that said complaint will also be
DISMISSED by the court because the Action for Forcible Entry was
DISMISSED.

Moreover, according to Atty. Viray, I will be committing forum

shopping if I will file Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment of
Title.

With due respect to Atty. Viray, the above-mentioned legal opinion is not
in accordance to law which is tantamount to gross ignorance of the
law.

It is humbly submitted that issuance of title does not vest ownership of a

parcel of land but only shows or evidences who the owner/s of the land
is/are. In the case of Heirs of Clemente Ermac vs. Heirs of Vicente Ermac
(G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003), the Supreme Court pronounced the
following:
 “Ownership should not be confused with a
certificate of title. Registering land under the
Torrens System does not create or vest title,
because registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. A certificate of title is merely an
evidence of ownership or title over the particular
property described therein.”

“xxx it must be stressed that the fact that the petitioner possesses a
Torrens Title does not automatically give her unbridled authority to
immediately wrest possession. It goes without saying that even the
owner of the property cannot wrest possession from its current
possessor. This was precisely the Court's ruling in Spouses
Munoz v. CA, 66 viz.:

If the private respondent is indeed the owner of the

premises and that possession thereof was deprived from
him for more than twelve years, he should present his
claim before the Regional Trial Court in an accion
publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria and not before the
Municipal Trial Court in a summary proceeding of
unlawful detainer or forcible entry. For even if he is the
owner, possession of the property cannot be
wrested from another who had been in possession
thereof for more than twelve (12) years through a
summary action for ejectment.

Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim

ownership based on the muniments of title it presented,
such evidence does not responsibly address the issue of
prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case.

It must be stated that regardless of 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. xxx”
Based on the above cited jurisprudence, Estelita Delizo needs to undergo
judicial process first before she may recover the possession and/or
ownership of the land in dispute to me which Estelita did not do. Instead,
on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under Enhanced
Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall be
followed, Jaime Delizo and Estelita with their cohorts entered the
subject property without my consent armed with bolo and “panabas”
and then proceeded to cut down different trees planted by my late
parents Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit
from Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
burned it and cleaned the area.1

Further, “The Rules are clear that if the entry into the property is
illegal, the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible
entry and this action must be brought within one (1) year from the illegal
entry. xxx” 2

“xxx for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove:
(1) prior physical possession of the property; and (2) unlawful
deprivation of it by the defendant through force, intimidation,
strategy, threat or stealth.” 3

In the case at bar, for more than fifty (50) years, I and my predecessor in
interest’s occupation over the subject property of this case was undisturbed
until on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under Enhanced
Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall be followed,
Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the above-mentioned lot
without my consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and then proceeded to
cut down different trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P. Flores and
Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the area 4

1
Copy of Trinidad Fontanilla Judicial Affidavit is hereto attached as Annex
“B”.
2
Teresita Bugayong-Santiago, Earl Eugene Santiago, Edward Santiago, and
Edgardo Santiago, Jr. vs. Teofilo Bugayong, G.R. No. 220389, December 6,
2017.
3
Nenita Quality Foods Corp. vs. Crisostomo Galabo, Adelaida Galabo, and
Zenaida Galabo-Almacbar, G.R. No. 174191, January 30, 2013.
4
Please see footnote 1.
In explaining what amounted to force, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled
that:
“Unlawfully entering the subject property and
excluding therefrom the prior possessor would
necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that
is necessary. In order to constitute force, the
trespasser does not have to institute a state of
war. No other proof is necessary. 5”

The Honorable Supreme Court further explained what constitutes force,

intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth in David v. Cordova6 -

“The words "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy

or stealth" include every situation or condition
under which one person can wrongfully enter upon
real property and exclude another, who has had
prior possession therefrom. If a trespasser enters
upon land in open daylight, under the very eyes of
the person already clothed with lawful possession,
but without the consent of the latter, and there
plants himself and excludes such prior possessor
from the property, the action of forcibly entry and
detainer can unquestionably be maintained, even
though no force is used by the trespasser other
than such as is necessarily implied from the mere
acts of planting himself on the ground and
excluding the other party.”

As stated above, on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under
Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall
be followed, Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the subject
property of this case without plaintiff’s consent armed with bolo and
“panabas” and then proceeded to cut down different trees planted by
his late parents Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without
permit from Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), burned it and cleaned the area.

5
Georgia T. Estel vs. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr., G.R.
No. 174082, January 16, 2012.
6
G.R. NO. 152992 July 28, 2005.
Based on the foregoing premises, it is very clear that I was in prior
possession of the disputed property and Jaime and Estelita deprived
me of my possession by force.

Furthermore, it is my humble opinion that since as stated in the above-

stated jurisprudence that “the fact that the petitioner possesses a
Torrens Title does not automatically give her unbridled authority
to immediately wrest possession. It goes without saying that even
the owner of the property cannot wrest possession from its
current possessor.”, I cannot dispossess Estelita and all other persons
claiming rights under her on the land dispute without undergoing judicial
process. Thus, “There are three (3) remedies available to one who has
been dispossessed of property: (I) an action for ejectment to recover
possession, whether for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; (2) accion
publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion, or a plenary action to
recover the right of · possession; and (3) accion reivindicatoria, or an
action to recover ownership. 7”

Based on the foregoing premises, it is very clear that the legal opinion
of Atty. Viray is against the law which is tantamount to gross
ignorance of the law.

With regard to the legal opinion of Atty. Viray that I will be committing
forum shopping if I will file Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment
of Title, said legal opinion is also not in accordance to law which is
tantamount to gross ignorance of the law.

“There is forum shopping when a party files different pleadings in

different tribunals, despite having the same "identit[ies] of parties, rights
or causes of action, and reliefs sought."46 Consistent with the
principle of fair play, parties are prohibited from seeking the same relief
in multiple forums in the hope of obtaining a favorable judgment. The
rule against forum shopping likewise fulfills an administrative purpose
as it prevents conflicting decisions by different tribunals on the same
issue.8”

7
Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs Spouses Anastacio Perlabarbarona, G.R. No. 195814,
April 4, 2018.
8
Ibid.
In the case at bar, what I am invoking in Action for Forcible Entry is my right
to possess the subject property being the actual occupant and possessor of
said lot before Estelita and Jaime with their cohorts illegally entered said lot
by force. While in Annulment of Title, what I am invoking is my right to due
process since “An action for annulment of title questions the validity of the
title because of lack of due process of law. There is an allegation of nullity
in the procedure and thus the invalidity of the title that is issued” 9.

Moreover, the relief sought in an Action for Forcible Entry is to get a

declaration from court that the plaintiff has a better right to possess the
subject property. While in Annulment of Title is a declaration from court that
the defendant’s certificate of title is null and void.

Considering the premises, there is no forum shopping if I will file Action for
Forcible Entry and then later on I will file Annulment of Title.

To further bolster my claim that I am the prior occupant and possessor

of the subject property, a copy of certification issued by Barangay Labit
Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and tax clearance are hereto
attached as Annex “C”, “D”, and “D1” respectively.

Considering the above-mentioned arguments, I respectfully request from

your office to MANDATE Atty. Atty. Monna Lissa C. Monje-Viray to file
Action for Forcible Entry and Damages and/or Prayer for Issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order and or Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction
on my behalf.

Considering that I passed the indigency and merit test conducted by PAO-
Urdaneta, it is my right to be assisted in every cause of action that I have.
Assisting person who passed indigency and merit test is a ministerial
duty of Atty. Viray as a Public Attorney.

Very truly yours,

MARIANO P. FLORES
9
Sps. Roberto Aboitiz and Maria Cristina Cabarrus vs. Sps. Peter L. Po and Victoria
Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5, 2017.