HEIRS OF PEDRO LAURORA vs STERLING TECHNOPARK and SP PROPERTIES

It is a complaint of forcible entry with damages.

The spouses Laurora alleged that they were the owners of Lot 1315-G SWD-40763 of the Yaptinchay Estate with an area of 39,771 sqmeter located in Carmona, Cavite. Pedro Laurora planted trees and has possessed the land up to the filing of the complaint. On Sept. 15, 1997 , Sterling Technopark III and S.P. Properties, Inc. through their Engineer Bernie Gtachalian bulldozed and uprooted the trees and plants, and with the use of armed men and by means of threats and intimidation succeeded in forcibly ejecting Laurora spouses. As a result of their dispossession , Laurora suffered actual damages in the amount of P3M and P10k attorneys fees.The Sterling and S.P. Properties that the Laurora were/are not the owner of the property because they dispose of it sometime in 1976 as shown by legal documents. On Apr. 2, 1969, the Land Authority issued an order of award in favour of the Laurora to buy the subject lot from the government. In a documents presented it was the Laurora who requested the transfer of the lot to Juan Manaig and it was favourably acted upon by the DAR AND Manaig as a transferee buyer paid the required amount as evidenced by the official receipt. And the transfer was made between Laurora and Manaig through Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan or Deed of Absolute Sale including all the improvements in favour of Manaig. The Sale was approved by the DAR. Thereafter the heirs of Manaig sold the lot to Golden Mile Resources Development which likewise sold it to S.P. Properties, Inc.

The MCTC dismissed the complaint and was elevated to RTC reversed the MCTC Ruling that was reversed by CA and reinstated the Ruling of MCTC that the petitioner has no evidence to support the claim of the petitioner of the prior possession of the property. The CA was convinced with the evidence the LAURORA already sold the property with the approval of DAR and subsequent possession of the land constituted usurpation., which could not be source of right to occupy it. Being planters in bad faith , they had no right to be reimbursed for improvements of the land, in accordance with Article 449 of the Civil Code. Hence, the petition.Issues: Whether the respondents have a valid and legal right to forcibly eject the petioners?

Held: The SC held that the only issue here is the material possession of a real property .

Granting that the petitioners illegally entered and occupied the property, the respondents has np right to take the law in their own hands and forcibly eject the occupants therfrom. Notwithstanding the actual condition of the title, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force even by the owners. If such illegal manner of ejectment is employed, the party who proves prior possession, can recover possession even from the owners.The availment of the aforementioned remedies is the legal alternative to prevent breaches of peace and criminal disorder from the use of force by claimants out to gain possession.

The SC ruled in favour of the Lauroras