Can a party emerge the victor in a possession issue even if he has no title yet to the property? He can, provided that possession is in accordance with the law.

In this case, petitioner Magsi availed of the provisions of Republic Act 5941. She applied as awardee of Lot 50 in Jungle Town, Engineer’s Hill, Baguio City, which she occupied since 1991.

The government awarded it to her. Titling, however, took quite some time. In fact, it was not issued at the time petitioner instituted the action against respondents heirs of Ignacio Lopez and even during the pendency of the appeal.

Much later, respondents became the owner of Lot 49, one adjacent to Magsi’s property. They were issued a title to their property. The huge problem however is that Lots 49 and 50 overlapped each other.

In 2016, respondents barred the petitioner and her relatives from the latter’s property. They were even deprived of their possessions inside the property. A “No trespassing” sign was installed to serve as warning against petitioner and her relatives.

This led petitioner to file a forcible entry case against respondents with the metropolitan trial court. The court held for her. On appeal, the regional trial court affirmed petitioner Magsi’s right to possession.

Undaunted, respondents brought the issue up to the Court of Appeals. Said court reversed the lower court and found for respondents.

She posed the issue of who between them, has the right to the possession over the property. The Supreme Court decreed that her petition was meritorious.

It held that respondents had the title over the property and corollarily, the right to its possession. It was thus the turn of petitioner Magsi to appeal.

She posed the issue of who between them, has the right to the possession over the property. The Supreme Court decreed that her petition was meritorious. “An action for forcible entry is governed by Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

(To be continued)