Landowner may not forcibly eject a usurper

Dear PAO,

My father, after a few years of working abroad as an OFW, was able to buy a property in Metro Manila. The property's title was registered under my father's name. Consequently, upon his return to the Philippines, he was surprised to learn that said property was occupied by tenants. Following a peaceful talk with the alleged landlord-owner, the latter voluntarily surrendered the property to my father. My father, then, allowed the tenants to continue occupying the property. However, upon my father's return abroad, the landlord forcibly evicted our tenants, and changed the padlocks. He argued that he has all the rights to forcibly enter our property and lock it because he is the owner. Is he correct?

John

Dear John,

One who claims ownership over a property may not take the law into her/his hands by forcibly evicting the actual occupants therein. This was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Esperal v. Trompeta-Esperal, GR 229076, Sept. 16, 2020, penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, where it held that:

«Records reveal that petitioner was able to satisfactorily prove by preponderance of evidence the existence of all the elements of forcible entry. While it may be true that respondents occupied the property before 2012, it was without the knowledge of petitioner and respondents voluntarily left the premises after the latter learned of petitioner's ownership. More importantly, petitioner was already in prior peaceful occupation of the subject property when respondents forcibly entered it by using a bolt cutter, evicted the tenants therein, changed the padlocks, and placed a rent signage in front of the property. These were the acts of respondents that prompted petitioner to file a forcible entry case.

»Respondents, on the other hand, countered that their entitlement to possession over the subject property is based on their ownership rights as evidenced by an Affidavit of Acceptance for the Foreclosure of the Mortgage of Real Property dated March 15, 2005 executed by Pablo. The Court stresses that the issue of ownership in ejectment cases is to be resolved only when it is intimately intertwined with the issue of possession to such an extent