Republic of the Philippines

Third Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF STA. MARIA
Province of Bulacan

MANOLITO L. ABALON,
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 2247

FOR: Forcible Entry
ALEX MALIGAYA, and all persons
claiming rights under his name.
Defendant.
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
This is a verified Complaint for Forcible Entry with Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction filed by Manolito Abalon (hereinafter
referred to as Plaintiff), against Alex Maligaya, and all other persons claiming rights
under his name (hereinafter referred to as Defendant) on October 12, 2017.

Summons, together with a copy of the Complaint and Annexes attached

thereto was duly served to defendant on October 20, 2017, as per return of the
process server of the Court.

On October 19, 2017, a restraining order was issued enjoining defendant

(and any persons acting under him) to continue any construction on the premises for
a period of twenty (20) days from service of the Order, and to show cause why
injunction should not be granted on the hearing on the application on October 23,
2017.

On October 30, 2017, defendant thru counsel, Atty. Luisito Cruz, filed his
Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory Counterclaims and Opposition to
the Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction .

After the hearing on December 4, 2017, the application for issuance of TRO
and/or Preliminary Injunction was denied for failure of the plaintiff to submit any
evidence to support its application; and the parties were referred to the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC) on January 23, 2017. The Pre-trial Conference is set on
February 26, 2018.

On February 5, 2018, defendant filed his Preliminary Conference Brief, while

the plaintiff on February 26, 2018.
DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 2 of 9

On February 26, 2018, on joint motion, the parties were ordered to appear
before Judge Myrna Lagrosa for Judicial Dispute Resolution.

The judicial dispute resolution also failed. Hence, the Preliminary Conference
was conducted.

On April 16, 2018, the Court issued its Preliminary Conference Order as
follows:

X x x

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff

This is a case of Forcible Entry filed by plaintiff against defendant for the latter’s
illegal occupation of the said property registered in the name of the plaintiff Manolito
Abalon married to Erlinda Abalon, who are now estranged. That sometime in
September 17, 2017, plaintiff was deprived possession of the above-mentioned land
by force, intimidation and threat by defendant through the use of armed men and
constructed improvements thereon. Plaintiff verbally demanded the defendant to
vacate the premises which demand was reiterated in the letter dated October 5, 2017
sent by his counsel failed and refused and still fails and refuses to vacate the property.
Plaintiff is seeking compensation of the land in the amount of Php5,000.00 from
September 17, 2017 until defendant actuallyvacates the premises and lastly,
Attorney’s fees in the amount of Php50,000.00 as acceptance fee plus Php2,000.00
per appearance.

Defendant

The subject property covered by TCT No. 36396 was a separate property of
Erlinda F. Abalon, who sold the same to the defendant. The plaintiff has no interest,
right, and participation to the land bought by the defendant. The plaintiff has never
been in possession of the land subject matter of this case at any point in time become
a co-owner and that his name in the title of the former wife was merely describe the
then status of the actual registered owner Erlinda F. Abalon who had the right to
dispose the same without the consent of the plaintiff. Defendant being the owner of
the property has the right to use, enjoy, and possess the same pursuant to Article 428
of the New Civil Code.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. For the Plaintiff

Admitted Facts:

1. Defendant admits that the property was titled in the name of the wife of the
plaintiff married to Manolito Abalon;
2. Defendant admits that there was no decision of the Philippine Court declaring
as null and void the marriage – with qualification that there is a divorce decree
between the spouses rendered by the California Court;
DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 3 of 9

3. Defendant admits the Marriage Contract between Manolito Abalon with

Erlinda Fernando – with qualification that the same was already terminated by
virtue of the divorce decree; and
4. Defendant admits the title of Erlinda Abalon was not transferred to the
defendant despite lapse of time.

B. For the Defendant

Admitted Facts:

1. Plaintiff admits that as a U.S. Citizen he is residing in the United States of

America while his wife is residing in Cubao, Quezon City;
2. Plaintiff admits that he is American Citizen with dual Citizenship; and
3. Plaintiff admits that there was no case filed for Annulment of the Deed of Sale
executed by the wife in favor of the defendant.

Disputed Facts:

1. Plaintiff denies that the subject property was formerly owned by the father of
the vendor Erlinda Abalon;
2. Plaintiff denies that the subject property was an inherited property of Erlinda
Abalon;
3. Plaintiff denies that the marriage of the plaintiff and Erlinda Abalon was
already terminated by virtue of the divorce proceedings as evidence by the
Notice of Entry of Judgment of Almeda Country Court;
4. Plaintiff denies that he is presently married to Carmela Gerardo;
5. Plaintiff denies that there is a Marriage Certificate of the plaintiff to Carmela
Gerardo;
6. Plaintiff denies that he has never been in possession of the subject parcel of
land and has been staying in the United States; and
7. Plaintiff denies that the case was filed ahead of the sending of the Demand
Letter.

III. EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

EXHIBITS   DESCRIPTION
"A"   Marriage Contract (xerox)
"B"   Transfer Certificate of Title (xerox)
"C"   Judicial Affidavit of the plaintiff
"D"   Judicial Affidavit of Estela Fernando
"E" to "E-14"   Pictures
"F"   Special Power of Attorney
"G"   Sumbong (xerox)
"H"   Oath of Allegiance of Manolito Abalon (xerox)
"H-1"   Identification Certificate (xerox); and
"H-2" Order of Approval of Citizenship Retention and Re-
  acquisition (xerox)
 
B. Defendant

EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION
"1" Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 17, 2017
"2" TCT No. T-36396 in the name of Pascual Fernando (provisional)
DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 4 of 9

"2-A" second page

"2-B" third page
"2-C" fourth page
"2-D" annotation of the Extra-Judicial Settlement with Waiver of Rights
"2-E" annotation under Entry No. 910829 of the Partition Agreement
"3" Certification from the Post Master of Sta. Maria
"4" Special Power of Attorney dated March 1, 1999 (xerox)
"4-A" Entry No. 910827 annotation in SPA
"5" Subdivision Plan of Lot 2440 (xerox
"5-A" Entry No. 910829 Subdivision Plan PSD 03169884
"5-A" Lot 2240-B in the said plan
"6" Kasunduan ng Magkakapatid (provisional)
"7" Notice of Entry of Judgment
"7-A" second page
"7-B" third page
"7-C" fourth page
"7-D" fifth page
"7-E" word "none" in page 3 referring to the Real Estate of the spouses
"7-F" signature of the declarant, the plaintiff Manolito Abalon
"7-G" the date February 17, 2004
"8" Marriage Certificate of the plaintiff Manolito Lingol Abalon to
Carmela Gerardo (provisional)
"9" Transfer Certificate of Title Erlinda Abalon (common exhibit)
"10" to "10-C" Judicial Affidavit of defendant Alex Maligaya; and
"11" to "11-D" Judicial Affidavit of Erlinda Abalon

IV. FACTUAL ISSUES

A. Plaintiff

1. Whether or not the defendant shall be evicted from the land subject matter of this
case; and
2. Whether or not the Deed of Sale without the signature or consent of the
plaintiff husband would confer the right of possession of the defendant.

B. Defendant

1. Whether the property subject matter of this case is conjugal or separate or

paraphernal property of the vendor Erlinda Abalon; and
2. Whether there was unlawful entry by the defendant who entered the lot by virtue
of Deed of Sale.

X x x

SO ORDERED.

On May 22, 2018, the defendant filed his Position Paper, while the plaintiff
belatedly submitted his Position Paper on May 30, 2018.

Hence, this Decision.

DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 5 of 9

Plaintiff, in the verified Complaint, avers substantially inter alia, that he is the
husband of estranged wife Erlinda F. Abalon; that they are the registered owners of
the land situated at Caybanban, Parada, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-533455 (M); that sometime in September 17, 2017, he was
deprived possession of the above-mentioned land by force, intimidation and threats
by defendant through the use of armed men and constructed improvements thereon,
to his prejudice; that immediately after the illegal occupation of the said land by the
defendant, he verbally demanded defendant to vacate the premises, which demand
was reiterated in the letter dated October 5, 2017 sent by his counsel to the said
defendant asking him to vacate the subject property, however, defendant failed and
refused to vacate the same to his continuous damage and prejudice; that by reason
of defendant’s unjustified refusal to vacate the premises, he was compelled to
engage the services of the counsel; that due to the bad faith of the defendant, he is
entitled to a reasonable compensation for the use of the land.

Defendant, in his verified Answer, denies the plaintiff’s allegations, the plaintiff
being divorced to his wife Erlinda and no longer stays in Sta. Maria Bulacan, but in
Oakland, California, U.S.A.; that the subject property was sold to him by Erlinda F.
Abalon - the registered and lawful owner of the said property; that said property was
inherited by Erlinda from her parents, as shown by the annotation of the Extra-
Judicial Settlement of Estate of the heirs of Pascual Fernando in the cancelled title of
her parents; he is merely exercising his right of ownership over the subject property;
that no prior demand letter was made by the plaintiff and received by the defendant,
but instead, received by the defendant’s son only on October 24, 2017, 5 days after
the filing of the instant complaint.

By way of affirmative defense and compulsory counterclaim, the defendant

claims that the subject property was a separate property of Erlinda F. Abalon, hence,
the plaintiff has no interest, right, and participation to the land; that the plaintiff is not
a real party-in-interest; that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the subject
land and did not, at any point in time, becomes a co-owner thereof and that his name
in the title of his former wife was merely to describe the status of the actual
registered owner; that the property was acquired by the vendor, Erlinda, by
gratuitous title, thus, the same was her exclusive or separate property; that he, being
the owner of the subject property has the right to use, enjoy, and possess the same
as an exercise of ownership and possession pursuant to Article 428 of the New Civil
Code; that the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
claim, the property being owned by the defendant; that the plaintiff, being a US
citizen could not have acquired any property in the Philippines; that the marriage
between the plaintiff and Erlinda Abalon was already dissolved in California, whereby
the plaintiff declared that no real estates were acquired by the spouses, thus,
estopped from claiming ownership of the subject property; that the Honorable Court
has no jurisdiction over the case, the issue being clear ownership of the property;
and lastly, that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action. He prays
for the dismissal of the complaint and to order the plaintiff to pay the sum of
P60,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus appearance fee, and the sum of P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 6 of 9

ISSUE

The heart of the issue is whether the plaintiff has made out a case for forcible
entry.

THE RULING OF THE COURT

In catena of cases, it has been held that “ there is forcible entry or desahucio
when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession is illegal from
the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de
facto. In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory
for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must alleged prior
physical possession of the property, and second, he must also alleged that he was
deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court, i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. It is also
settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is determining who is entitled
to the physical possession of the property. Indeed, any of the parties who can prove
prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself
since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff
needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof .”1

The only issue in ejectment proceedings is who is entitled to physical or

material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de facto, not possession
de Jure.

The plaintiff failed to clearly prove that he is in prior physical possession of

the property. His bare allegation in the verified complaint that he was deprived of
possession of the subject property by force, intimidation and threat by defendant
through the use of armed men and constructed improvements thereon to the
prejudice of the plaintiff is not evidence.

Possession does not only mean that a man has to have his feet on every
square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.  In the case at
hand, plaintiff has not shown juridical acts over the subject property which the law
gives force of acts of possession.

In the case of Mangaser vs. Ugay2, the Supreme Court enumerated acts
which the law gives force of acts of possession, such as donation, succession,
execution and registration of public instruments, inscription of possessory
information titles and the like. Thus:

As a rule, the word "possession" in forcible entry suits indeed refers to

nothing more than prior physical possession or possession de facto, not
1
Munoz vs. Atty. Yabut, Jr., et al. (G.R. No. 142676/146718, June 6, 2011)
2
G.R. No. 204926, December 3, 2014
DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 7 of 9

possession de Jure or legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil

law. Title is not the issue, and the absence of it "is not a ground for the
courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case."

The Court, however, has consistently ruled in a number of cases  that

while prior physical possession is an indispensable requirement in forcible
entry cases, the dearth of merit in respondent's position is evident from the
principle that possession can be acquired not only by material occupation,
but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the
proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. The
case of Quizon v. Juan,  which surprisingly was relied on by the CA, also
stressed this doctrine.

Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. These are acts to which

the law gives the force of acts of possession. Examples of these are
donations, succession, execution and registration of public instruments,
inscription of possessory information titles and the like.  The reason for this
exceptional rule is that possession in the eyes of the law does not mean
that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it
can be said that he is in possession.  It is sufficient that petitioner was able
to subject the property to the action of his will.  [Emphasis supplied]

In this case, while the name of the plaintiff was included in the certificate of
title of Erlinda Abalon, the same fact alone cannot be considered as an act which the
law gives the force of acts of possession.

A scrutiny of the subject Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-533455 reveals

that it is a transfer from Certificate of Title No. T-36396 in the name of Pascual
Fernando, the father of Erlinda. The subject certificate of title was issued by virtue of
the Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver of Rights executed by Erlinda and her other
siblings. To say the least, the subject property was transferred to Erlinda through
succession, or gratuitous title. Under Article 92 of the Family Code, properties
acquired by gratuitous title during the existence of marriage are excluded from the
community property of spouses, and it is the separate and exclusive property of the
spouse who received the property. The Code provides that:

Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the community property:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse,
and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly
provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the
community property;

(2) X x x

Moreover, the subject certificate of title was registered in the name of Erlinda
F. Abalon married to Manolito Abalon. In the case of Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan,
Jr.3, the Supreme Court held that the words “married to” preceding the name of a

3
G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013
DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 8 of 9

spouse are merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered owner.  Such words
do not prove co-ownership. Without proof of actual contribution from either or both
spouses, there can be no co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code.

It is also worthy to note that when the subject property was transferred to
Erlinda in the year 2009, as indicated in the lower portion of the certificate of title, the
decree of divorce between Manolito and Erlinda had already been issued as early as
February 17, 2004. In fact, plaintiff, after getting the divorce decree, contracted
another marriage with Carmela Gerardo in Lake Tahoe, Nevada on June 5, 2004, as
shown by the State of Nevada Certificate of Marriage (Exh. “8”, for the defendant).
Thus, this negates the claim of plaintiff that the subject property is one of their
conjugal properties.4

Based on the foregoing, the subject property is the separate and exclusive
property of Erlinda F. Abalon, hence, she can dispose of the same even without the
consent of plaintiff. True enough, Erlinda sold the property to defendant, who
immediately took possession of the same, as shown by the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated August 17, 2017 (Exh. “1”, for the defendant).

As regards the claim of the plaintiff, that the defendant employed force,
intimidation and threat through the use of armed men in entering the subject
property, the same is bereft of merit. As borne by the records, defendant is merely
exercising his right of ownership over the subject property. Being such owner, he is
protected under Art. 428 of the New Civil Code, which states that “The owner has
the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those
established by law. The owner has also a right of action against the holder and
possessor of the thing in order to recover it.”

Considering that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently show that he is in prior

physical possession of the subject property, the second essential element that the
defendant deprived him of possession through force, intimidation and threat, likewise
cannot lie.

Further, in order to protect his interest against a baseless complaint,

defendant was constrained to engage the services of counsel and payment of
reasonable attorney’s fee is therefore justified.

Sec. 17, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:

Sec. 17. Judgment. If after trial the court finds that the allegations of the
complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution
of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorney's fees and
costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true, it shall render judgment for the
defendant to recover his costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court shall
render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as
justice requires. [Underscoring supplied]

4
Answer No. 5, Judicial Affidavit of Manolito Abalon (Exh. “C”, for the plaintiff)
DECISION Civil Case No. 2247
Abalon vs. Maligaya Page 9 of 9

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of

the defendant, and as against the plaintiff -

1. DISMISSING the complaint;

2. DECLARING that defendant has the better right of possession and
entitled to possession of the subject land;
3. ORDERING the plaintiff to pay the defendant the amount of ₱30,000.00
as and by way of Attorney's fees; and to pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Sta. Maria, Bulacan, June 11, 2018.

HON. BOY PILANTOD

Acting Presiding Judge