8/12/2019 Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents v Court of Appeals [d2017]

1/1

Author: Coco Navarro

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS

ASSOCIATION, INC. V COURT OF APPEALS (1996)

Petition:CertioriariPetitioner:Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents (COCLAI)Respondent: Court of Appeals, National Housing Authority (NHA)

Ponencia:Hermosisima

DOCTRINE: In an action for forcible entry, the only issue involved is merephysical possession (possession de facto) and not juridical possession(possession de jure) nor ownership.

FACTS:1. A parcel of timber land was released as a disposable public land.

COCLAI was authorized to survey the land for the purpose ofsubdivision into residential slots. COCLAI filed for a Sales

Application for the lot but it was held in abeyance by the Bureau ofLands because there was a pending annulment case against a

certain Benedicta Salcedo who has an original certificate of title overthe said property. The title was annulled.

2. In spite of this, COCLAI members occupied the said land. Thisparcel of land became the subject of a Slum Improvement andResettlement project of the NHA and subsequently, the Bureau ofLands rejected the subdivision survey submitted by the COCLAI.

3. NHA demolished the structures erected by COCLAI. In turn, COCLAIfiled a complaint for forcible entry and damages against NHAemployees and police officers.

4. The MTCC ruled in favor of COCLAI and ruled for the restoration oftheir portions of the land. The RTC affirmed the ruling.

5. Meanwhile, an original certificate of title for the land in question was

issued in the name of NHA. NHA filed for a complaint for Quietingof Title with Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunctionagainst COCLAI. The RTC issued a TRO, stopping COCLAI fromenforcing the results of the civil case but this was later dismissed. CAreversed the decision.

ISSUE:1. Whether or not the NHA is entitled to the injunction prayed for2. Whether or not NHA has a better right to the possession of the lot as

a necessary consequence of ownership

PROVISIONS OF LAW

1. Injunctiona remedy to preserve status quo availed of to preventacts until the merits of the case are heard; strong arm of equity forthe preservation of rights. Essential requisites: 1) there must be aright in esse or in existence to be protected; 2) the act against whichthe injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right

2. sadRULING + RATIO:

1. YES, NHA was entitled to such writ because a certificate of title hasalready been issued in its name. This was necessary because there

was a need to restrain the decision of the MTCC as soon as the

status of the land was changed. Clearly, the government through the

NHA will be prejudiced if the lands were restored to the COCLAI

members.

2. YES, NHA has a better right. Apart from mere administration as

petitioners argue, the certificate of title vested not only ownership but

also the right of possession as a necessary consequence of the right

to ownership.

Furthermore, on the issue of forcible entry the only issue involved

is mere physical possession (possession de facto) and not juridical

possession (possession de jure) nor ownership. Since the case filed

by COCLAI to the MTCC was merely that of forcible entry, the legal

title is not in question. The judgment rendered is effective only with

respect to possession of the land. BUT after the denial of its Sales

Patent Application, COCLAIs occupation/possession of the land has

become illegal. The members have become mere squatters whose

continuous possession is considered bad faith. They will acquire no

legal right over the land.