In both cases, the plaintiffs, who filed an action for forcible entry/unlawful detainer against the defendants, held the title to the property and proved their prior possession over the subject property sought to be recovered. In the case at hand, while respondents are the holders of a Torrens title over Lot No. 49, they only became constructive possessors of the lot when it was issued sometime in 2004. It is Magsi who has had prior possession over the subject property which she built in 1991, which is inside Lot No. 49.

It must be stressed that in actions for forcible entry, the only issue is the prior material possession (possession de facto) of real property and not ownership (possession de jure). Thus, courts should base their decision on who had prior physical possession of the property under litigation. Moreover, it must be stressed that Magsi, though not the registered owner of Lot No. 49, cannot be ousted by force from the subject property which encroaches upon Lot No. 49. As held in Esperal v. Trompeta-Esperal;

Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror, not even by the owners. Assuming arguendo that herein respondents are the real owners of the subject property, they had no right to take the law into their own hands and summarily or forcibly eject petitioner’s tenants from the subject property. Their employment of illegal means to eject petitioner by force in entering the subject property by destroying the locks using [a] bolt cutter, replacing the locks, and prohibiting the tenants to enter therein made them liable for forcible entry since prior possession was established by petitioner.

Further, in Heirs of Laurora v. Sterling Technopark 111, it was held that: Notwithstanding the actual condition of the title to the property, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror — not even by the owners...

Courts should base their decision on who had a prior physical possession of the property under litigation.

Verily, even if petitioners were mere usurpers of the land owned by respondents, still they are entitled to remain on it until they are lawfully ejected therefrom. Under appropriate circumstances, respondents may file, other than an ejectment suit, an accion publiciana... or an accion reivindicatoria...

All told, Magsi sufficiently proved all the elements for an action of forcible entry to prosper: (1) that she had a prior physical possession of the subject property since 1991, (2) that respondents entered the property through force, installed fences and a “NO TRESPASSING” sign, and took possession of the property in 2016; and (3) that the action was filed within one year from the time Magsi was deprived of physical possession over the subject property.”

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Mercuria B. Magsi v. Heirs of Ignacio A. Lopez Jr. (G.R. No. 262034, 22 May 2024).