Acaylar v HarayoDistinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer

Facts:1. Respondent filed a complaint before the MTC for forcible entry against Petitioner.a. Respondent alleges:i. That he is the owner of a 30,000sqm subject property in Dapitan City, evidenced by a deed of sale executed by Petitioners parents.ii. That Petitioner, using strategy, intimidation, threats, and stealth entered the subject property, cut the grass, pastured his cows, and gathered the fallen coconuts and other fruits.b. Petitioner answersi. The property claimed by Respondent is only a portion of a 59,775sqm property that he is in possession and administers. Respondent cannot definitively claim which portion of it since it was not clearly delineated.ii. That he, together with his sisters, already filed an action for the annulment of deed of sale against Respondent.c. At the pre-trial conference, parties stipulated that only 30,000sqm was sold to Respondents and that there is a pending case. One of the evidence presented was an affidavit by Petitioners mother which attests that she sold the subject property to Respondent and that she prohibits her son from administering it or entering it.d. MTC ruled IFO Respondent.2. RTC affirmed MTC. Petitioners parents merely tolerated his presence in the property.a. Banking on a second affidavit by his mother which renounced her first affidavit, Petitioner moved to MRb. RTC denied MR3. Petitioner moved for review on certiorari before the CA. CA dismissed the petition, citing that petition for review under R42 should have been filed instead of this petition, and other procedural lapses.4. Hence, this petition.

Issue: W/N the forcible entry case is properHeld: No. Respondent has no cause of action against petitioner.

Ratio:SC agreed with CA for procedural lapses on part of Petitioner, but looked this over in the interest of justice.

Under R71 S1, there are two distinct causes of action:1. Forcible entry an action to recover possession of a property from defendant whose occupation thereof is illegal from the beginning as he acquired possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth2. Unlawful detainer - an action for recovery of possession from defendant whose possession of the property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract

Distinctions:UNLAWFUL DETAINERFORCIBLE ENTRY

Plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possessionPlaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property until he was deprived by defendant

The possession of the defendant is inceptively lawful but it becomes illegal by reason of the termination of his right to the possession of the property under his contract with the plaintiffThe possession of the land by the defendant is unlawful from the beginning as he acquires possession thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth

Plaintiff must make the demand to vacateThe law does not require a previous demand for the defendant to vacate the premises

The most important distinction is the nature of defendants entry into the subject property. In this case, Respondent filed forcible entry because he was in prior possession of the property as he immediately took possession of it after the deed of sale. Petitioner counters that he is in possession of it since 1979, having built his house thereon, that it was impossible for him to unlawfully enter as he was already occupying it.

The fact of prior physical possession is indispensable in forcible entry cases. Plaintiff cannot succeed if there is a showing that the defendant is in possession of it before he did. Such fact must be looked into by the SC, and since there are conflicting rulings, SC reviews the facts.

MTC relies on the first affidavit of Petitioners mother. From the first affidavit, it would appear that Petitioner was never in possession of the subject property. However, the RTC found that Petitioner is already in possession of it but was merely tolerated by his parents.

SC said that Petitioner is indeed in possession of the property prior to Respondents possession, if any. Even if SC were to look into the first affidavit, it was never claimed that petitioner unlawfully or illegally entered her property when he built his house thereon. Respondents sole assertion that he immediately took possession of the property after buying it lacks clear evidentiary support.

The conflicting Affidavits of Petitioners mother, notwithstanding, SC finds that petitioner was in peaceful possession of the subject property prior to its sale to respondent. There is no showing that either Petitioners mother or Respondent made a demand on Petitioner to vacate the subject property. In the absence of an oral or written demand, petitioners possession of the subject property has yet to become unlawful.