Thus, the following elements must be alleged and proved: (1) that the plaintiff had prior physical possession of the property; (2) that the plaintiff was deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (3) 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 main point of contention is whether Magsi was able to prove that she had prior physical possession over the subject property.

We rule in the affirmative.

It is undisputed that Magsi occupied and built a residential house on Lot No. 50 as early as 1991. In 1993, she declared her residential house/building for tax purposes. Meanwhile, based on OCT No. P-3097 of the Register of Deeds of Baguio City, Lot No. 49 was awarded to Ignacio through a Special Patent pursuant to Republic Act No. 1361 on 27 July 2004. Notably, the parties stipulated that the property sought to be recovered by Magsi encroaches upon Lot No. 49, which is titled in the name of Ignacio. Such fact is also supported by the sketch plan of land prepared by Geodetic Engineer Bobby M. Villena. Thus, while the CA correctly held that possession can be acquired through juridical acts, i.e., the execution and registration of the deed of absolute sale in favor of Ignacio, Magsi’s prior physical possession since 1991 has been well-established and even admitted by respondents. While Magsi did not have prior physical possession over the entire Lot No. 49, the subject property whose possession Magsi seeks to recover is inside Lot No. 49. Therefore, as between Magsi and the respondents, Magsi sufficiently proved that she had a prior physical possession of the subject property.

As correctly pointed out by Magsi, this case is in stark contrast with the factual milieu in the cases of Mangaser and Spouses Orencia.

In spouses Orencia, the plaintiff filed a complaint for unlawful detainer for the failure of the defendants (who were tenants) to pay rent and their refusal to vacate the property. The plaintiff submitted its transfer certificate of title over the subject property to prove a better right of possession. Meanwhile, the defendants failed to present any substantial evidence to counter the plaintiff’s claim to ownership and possession. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and held that the holder of a Torrens title is the rightful owner of the property thereby covered and is entitled to its possession.

As correctly pointed out by Magsi, this case is in stark contrast with the factual milieu in the cases of Mangaser and Spouses Orencia.

In Mangaser, the plaintiff filed a complaint for forcible entry and presented an original certificate of title issued in 1987 and tax declarations dated 1995 onwards to prove prior physical possession upon discovering that the defendant surreptitiously constructed a residential house on a portion of his land without his consent sometime in 2006. On the other hand, the defendant’s claim of possession anchored on the fact that he had resided in the area since birth, cultivated the land and constructed a dwelling as early as March 2006. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It held that the plaintiff acquired possession of the subject property through a juridical act, specifically, through the issuance of a free patent under Commonwealth Act No. 141 and its subsequent registration with the register of deeds in 1987. (To be continued)