Capuyoc v. De Sola; G.R. No. 151322; October 11, 2006

In proving possession, the execution of a Deed of Sale is merely a prima facie presumption of delivery of possession of a piece of real property which is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of legal impediment.

FACTS Mario Copuyoc (petitioner) and his spouse are holders of a Contract to Sell between them as buyers and the Bank of Commerce. They began constructing a house on the property without the consent of the respondent. On the other hand, respondent herein alleges that he is the owner of the disputed parcel of land and has been in actual possession of the property since 1993 when it was sold to her by a Christine Quesada as evidenced by an Absolute Deed of Sale. It should be noted that the title to the property describes a different property, as the Deed of the respondent in this case, states that the property is in Tandang Sora, but actually it is in Loyola. Two testimonies were given in court, one stating that it is not the property described and the other, stating that the properties were identical. Respondent filed a case with the MTC for forcible entry. The MTC decided the case in favor of the petitioners, dismissing the complaint for forcible entry. On appeal, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC. The CA, on certiorari, denied the petition of Copuyoc. It stated that the respondent had prior possession of the property and petitioner encroached on such possession. Even though respondent did not stay on the property, her regular visits to the same are deemed to be possession thereof.

ISSUE Who had prior possession over the property subject of this case?

HELD Copuyoc has prior possession over the property. In forcible entry cases, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. It implies that the possession of the thing has been unlawful from the beginning and that he acquired such possession by illegal means. What is to be decided here is mere physical possession or material possession, not juridical possession nor ownership of the property. It does not even matter that a party's title to the property is questionable. The party in peaceable and quite possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him. Petitioner's right to possess the property is not derived from any claim of ostensible ownership over the same but on the provision in the Contract to Sell allowing him to take possession of the property pending reconstitution of the title and full payment of the purchase price. Ownership was still with the Bank of Commerce. It has been ruled in an ejectment case that it cannot succeed where it appears that the party had a possession antedating to that of the

plaintiff. To ascertain this, it is proper to look at the possession of the respondent. Execution of a Deed of Sale is merely a prima facie presumption of delivery of possession of a piece of real property. It may be negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold as in the respondent's case. Records show that the respondent never occupied the property from the time it was allegedly sold to her. Her regular visits cannot be held to be possession by the court since, such visits were not coupled by actual exercise of dominion over the property. She only visited the property for five times in a span of three years, she did not construct anything thereon, neither did she know the road number where the property was located. Copuyoc herein established their actual physical possession over the property. In this case, possession is the only issue, not ownership.