To: Ethel Malabanan, Supervising Attorney

From: Ma. Vidia B. Largo, Associate Attorney

Date: March 31, 2023

Re: Mr. B versus Mr. A and the Maynilad water system – Forcible Entry

Case; Defenses in Forcible Entry

____________________________________________________________

You have tasked me to prepare a legal memorandum concerning the

case of our client Mr. B who filed a case of forcible entry against Mr. A and

the Maynilad water system. I have presented here the key facts, issues, our

possible defense, applicable jurisprudence and laws that can be our basis

to defend our client, including possible counterarguments from the

opposing and our answer to that counter arguments.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.) Whether or not the forcible entry case filed by Mr. B in the MCTC

Batangas City against Mr. A and the Maynilad water system will prosper.

2.) Whether or not Mr. B may ask the removal or demolition of what has

been built at Mr. A’s expense.

 SHORT ANSWER/ BRIEF ANSWERS

1). Yes, the forcible entry case filed by Mr. B in the MCTC Batangas

City against Mr. A and the Maynilad water system will prosper since the

essential and forma requisites of forcible entry was complied with. 2.) Yes,

Mr. B may ask the removal or demolition of what has been built at Mr. A’s

expense since Mr. A is considered a builder in bad faith and Mr. B had

proven that he is the owner of the land as per the geodetic engineer.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Our client, Mr. B (a resident of Makati City) have co-owned a parcel

of land with Mr. A (a resident of City of Manila). Mr. B filed a complaint for

forcible entry against Mr. A. Mr. A and Mr. B are siblings and are co-

owners of a parcel of land containing an area of 1000 sq.m. located at

Batangas City. They verbally agreed that the manner of partition of the

said lot would be based on the existing location of their respective

houses separated by the banana trees. Several years after, A caused

the construction of water pipes connecting to the Maynilad water system

dislocating the banana trees. When B discovered the construction of

water pipes, he asked a geodetic engineer to survey the property to

determine on whose side were the pipes placed. As per the geodetic
engineer, the pipes were placed on the area assigned to B occupying an

estimated area of 10sq.m.

DISCUSSIONS/ANALYSIS

The first issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the

forcible entry case filed by Mr. B in the MCTC Batangas City against Mr. A

will prosper. For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiffs must allege

and prove: a. that they have prior physical possession of the property; b.

that they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat,

strategy or stealth; c. and that the action was filed within one (1) year from

the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the

physical possession of the property.

As supplemented by the Rules of Court in fact expressly provide in

Section 16, Rule 70 that the issue of ownership shall be resolved in

deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is intertwined

with the issue of ownership.

From the above-cited article and jurisprudence, Mr. A can be held

liable for Forcible Entry since the all the essential requisites are present in

this case. Mr. A and B’s verbal agreement that the manner of partition of

the said lot would be based on the existing location of their respective
houses separated by the banana trees is valid. Furthermore, Mr. B asked

a geodetic engineer to survey the property to determine on whose side

were the pipes placed. As per the geodetic engineer, the pipes were

placed on the area assigned to B occupying an estimated area of

10sq.m., therefore, Mr. A can be held liable.

On second issue of the case, whether or not Mr. B may ask the

removal or demolition of what has been built at A’s expense, plus

damages. In cases of builders in bad faith, B, as the property owner can

choose to appropriate the structure, without any obligation to pay any

indemnity except for necessary expenses, plus damages or ask the

removal of the structure at A’s expense, plus damages or compel A to pay

the value of the land, plus damages.

Article 449 of the Civil Code applies to builders in bad faith, to wit:

“He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another,

loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.”

Article 450 of the Civil Code will also apply. It provides:

“The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or

sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the
planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former

condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he

may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the

sower the proper rent.”

Thus, the following are the three alternative rights of B as the property

owner:

1. To appropriate what has been built, planted or sown in bad faith,

without any obligation to pay any indemnity therefore except for

necessary expenses for the preservation of the land (Art. 452, Civil

Code), plus damages or

2. To ask the removal or demolition of what has been built at A’s

expense, plus damages or

3. To compel A to pay the price or value of the land, whether or not the

value of the land is considerably more than the value of the

improvements, and the sower, to pay the proper rent, plus damages.

Mr. B had proven that he is the owner of the land as per the geodetic

engineer, therefore, Mr. A must remove or demolish what he has

been built at his own expense, plus damages.

 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Our defense will propsper, as provided by law and jurisprudence, Mr.

A and Maynilad Water Services can be held liable for forcible entry by

strategy. The facts showed that Mr. B had proven that he is the owner of

the property and established that all the elements of forcible entry are

present and it was done by strategy when Mr. A and the MAynilad water

system had constructed water pipes without the knowledge and consent of

Mr. B. Furthermore, it is highly recommended the geodetic engineer will be

our expert witness to testify that the water pipes was constructed on the

portion of land of Mr. B.