De Luna v.

CA

Facts:

 De Luna filed a case for forcible entry, alleging that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land in San Juan,
Zambales since 1938
o However, on December 18 and 19 1971 Daclison et al (Daclison, Crispin, Doble and Dimaano) entered
the land and began plowing it and even fenced the land with barbed wire and began planting sugar cane
o Now De Luna wants them out and pay him 45 pesos monthly per hectare until he regains possession of
the land
 Defendants denied the allegations in the complaint.
o Daclison, Crispin and Doble deny ever entering the and occupying the disputed property
o Dimaano for his part claimed that De Luna was NOT the owner of the property, it was owned by
Dequina who had declared the property in his name for taxation.
 Dequina died then his son took over and leased the property to Dimaano
 Dequina is actually the uncle of De Luna
 MTC ruled in favor of De Luna
 RTC revered the decision of the MTC, CA affirmed RTC decision

Issue: WON De Luna should have possession of the property

RULING: YES

Well-established is the rule in ejectment cases that the only issue to be resolved therein is who is entitled to the physical
or material possession of the premises, or possession de facto, independent of any claim of ownership that either party
may set forth in their pleadings.

 If petitioner can prove prior possession in himself, he may recover such possession from even the owner
himself.
 Whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in his favor priority time, he has the security
that entitles him to stay on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by either
accion publiciana or accion reindivicatoria.

Dimaano may have claimed to possess the property by virtue of a lease agreement by the alleged owner, but the RTC is
wrong to conclude that Dequina owns the subject property

 De Luna PROVED he had prior possession of the property and established by witnesses, notably by his own
tenants (possession by Dilag, his lessee, can be proven since 1953 and since possession can be exercised in the
name of another, it positively redounds to De Luna)
 Witnesses also state that De Luna has cultivated the land from 1938 to 1941 with his mother and leased the
property to the witness
 On the other hand, Dimaano failed to prove Dequina Jr’’s PRIOR POSSESSION, much less ownership over the lant
 The mere fact that Dequina Sr, declared the property for taxation purposes does not constitute possession