SAMBALILO v. SPS. LLARENAS

LORETA SAMBALILO, SALVADOR SAMBALILO, ZOILO SAMBALILO, JR. and RENANTE SAMBALILO, Petitioners VERSUS SPOUSES PABLO LLARENAS AND FE LLARENAS, Respondents

G.R. No. 222685

June 21, 2017

FACTS:

This case originated from a complaint for forcible entry, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, filed by Spouses Pablo Llarenas and Fe Llarenas against Loreta Sambalilo and her children, Salvador, Zoilo, Jr., and Renante, before the MTCC.

Sps. Llarenas, in their complaint, alleged that they were the owners of a parcel of land with an area of 120 square meters, located in Barrio Matobato, Calbayog City, having acquired it by purchase under a deed of sale, dated April 17, 1972, from Zoilo Sambalilo, late husband of petitioner Loreta Sambalilo, with the following adjoining boundaries: on the north - by the remaining portion of Zoilo; east - by the land of Ricardo Delgado; south by the seashore; and west - by the remaining portion of Zoilo. Subsequently, or on November 23, 1981, Sps. Llarenas acquired another parcel of land, by purchase from the same vendor, consisting of 176 square meters, bounded as follows: on the north - by the provincial road; east - by the land of Conrado Ignacio and Jurado Sarmiento; south - by the seashore; and west by the land of Tiburcio Chan. Immediately thereafter, they occupied and took possession of the said properties by introducing improvements, such as the construction of a septic tank, a piggery building, a house rented to Spouses Cabuenas, the house of their caretaker, a steel gate, a fence made of coco lumber, and another house where they allowed their daughter to stay. On August 20, 2004, under the pretext of inspecting their septic tank, the petitioners suddenly entered their property, forcibly removed the steel gate from its concrete mounting and, with the assistance of several helpers, began constructing a concrete fence within the premises of their property.

In their answer, the Sambalilos contended that Loreta was, and had always been, in possession of the property where the concrete fence and framework of a future house had been erected because that area was within the portion of their land, left unsold, and where her residential house had been standing.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not forcible entry case can prosper?

HELD:

For a forcible entry case 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; and

(c) that the action was filed within one year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property.

The only purpose of a forcible entry suit is to protect the person who had prior physical possession against another who unlawfully entered the property and usurped possession. Hence, in this case, it is imperative that respondents establish that the improvements introduced by petitioners dispossessed them of the land they owned. It is undisputed that petitioners had constructed a concrete fence and a framework of a future house, the very structures complained of, as the direct result of the alleged illegal intrusion of petitioners on the disputed lots.

Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts, not upon him who denies, because, by the nature of things, the one who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it. 31 In this case, the burden to prove that they were in prior physical possession of the property and that they were deprived of possession thereof by force and/or stealth lies with respondents. The Court holds that respondents failed to carry out this burden because, as already stated, even their own evidence belied their assertions.