On December 13, 1993, Ramon and Agnes Lim

THIRD DIVISION filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calauag,
Quezon an action for forcible entry against spouses
Napoleon and Evelyn Gaza, docketed as Special
Civil Action No. 845.
[G.R. No. 126863. January 16, 2003]
On December 21, 1993, spouses Gaza filed with
the same court their answer with compulsory
counterclaim.
SPOUSES NAPOLEON L. GAZA and EVELYN On June 1, 1994, the MTC dismissed the
GAZA, SPOUSES RENATO PETIL and complaint and counterclaim.
MELY PETIL, BRGY. SEC. VICTORIO A.
CONDUCTO and BRGY. TANOD ARTURO On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
ALAON, petitioners, vs. RAMON J. LIM Branch 63, Calauag, Quezon, affirmed the MTC
and AGNES J. LIM, respondents. Decision with modification, thus:

DECISION "WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing

considerations the judgment of the lower court is
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: hereby AFFIRMED and the appeal is DENIED with
the modification that the plaintiffs are ordered to pay
The present petition for review on the amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages
certiorari[1] seeks to set aside the Decision dated April and P5,000.00 by way of exemplary damages to the
29, 1995 and the Resolution dated October 10, 1996 defendants spouses Napoleon Gaza and Evelyn
of the Court of Appeals [2] in CA-G.R. SP No. 36997 Gaza.
reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 63, Calauag, Quezon in Civil Case No. C- "SO ORDERED."[3]
1031 for forcible entry.
The factual milieu of this case is as follows: On April 29, 1995, Ramon and Agnes Lim filed
with the Court of Appeals a petition for review,
On February 20, 1961, Napoleon Gaza docketed therein as CA-G. R. SP No. 36997. In its
purchased a parcel of land with an area of 5,270 Decision, the Court of Appeals[4]reversed and set
square meters located in Barangay Sta. Maria, aside the Decision of the RTC, thus:
Calauag, Quezon, from Angeles Vda. de Urrutia. The
Register of Deeds of Lucena City then cancelled the
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
latters title and issued Transfer Certificate of Title
hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. The decision of the
(TCT) No. T-47263 in the name of Napoleon Gaza.
Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63,
Thereafter, Napoleon Gaza and his wife Evelyn affirming the decision of the Municipal Trial Court, is
engaged in the lumber and copra business. They hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one
constructed a huge lumber shed on the property and is rendered ordering the private respondents and all
installed engines, machinery and tools for a lumber persons claiming rights under them to vacate the
mill. They also utilized a portion of the property as premises in question and surrender its possession to
storage for copra. In 1975, they ceased engaging in the petitioners.
business. They padlocked the gates of the property,
leaving it to the care of Numeriano Ernesto. When he "SO ORDERED."
died in 1991, spouses Gaza designated Renato Petil
as the new caretaker of the land. Spouses Gaza filed a motion for reconsideration
On the other hand, Ramon and Agnes Lim, both but was denied. Hence, they filed with this Court the
half-siblings of Napoleon Gaza, claimed that they present petition for review on certiorari ascribing to
have used the same lot for their lumber and copra the Court of Appeals the following errors:
business since 1975, as shown by Lumber Certificate "I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
of Registration No. 2490, PCA Copra Business FAILING TO RULE THAT THERE WAS
Registration No. 6265/76 and Mayor's Permit dated NO IMPLIED ADMISSION ON THE
December 31, 1976. Sometime in November 1993, PART OF PETITIONERS THAT
they designated Emilio Herrera as caretaker of the PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN
property. IN PRIOR AND ACTUAL PHYSICAL
On November 28, 1993, the padlock of the main POSSESSION OF SUBJECT
gate was destroyed. According to Napoleon Gaza, PROPERTY SINCE 1975.
the siblings Ramon and Agnes Lim and Emilio "II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
Herrera, entered the property by breaking the lock of ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
the main gate. Thereafter, they occupied a room on RESOLVING THE INSTANT CASE ON
the second floor of the warehouse without the MERE TECHNICALITIES AND IN
consent of Renato Petil who was then outside the APPLYING THE RULES OF
premises. PROCEDURE IN A VERY RIGID
For their part, Ramon and Agnes Lim maintain MANNER, THEREBY DENYING
that on November 28, 1993, spouses Gaza detained PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIAL
Emilio Herrera and his daughter inside the compound JUSTICE.
and destroyed the padlocks of the gates. Thereafter, "III. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
said spouses forcibly opened Agnes Lim's quarters at ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
the second floor of the warehouse and occupied it. IGNORING THE VOLUMINOUS
 EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the complaint for forcible
PETITIONERS IN SUBSTANTIATING entry quoted as follows:
THEIR PRIORITY IN POSSESSION OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY, SAID ERROR xxx
BECOMING EVEN MORE MANIFEST
IN THE LIGHT OF THE GLARING "2. That plaintiffs are the actual and joint occupants
PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE OF PRIVATE and in prior continuous physical possession since
RESPONDENTS TO SUPPORT THEIR 1975 up to Nov. 28, 1993 of a certain commercial
ALLEGED POSSESSION. compound described as follows:
"IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
FAILING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A certain parcel of land situated in Bo. Sta. Maria,
THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY Calauag, Quezon. Bounded on the N., & E., by Julian
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF de Claro; on the W., by Luis Urrutia. Containing an
RESPONDENT AGNES LIM FOR area of 5,270 square meters, more or less.Declared
TRESPASSING INTO SUBJECT under Ramon J. Lims Tax Dec. No. 4576 with an Ass.
PROPERTY, CLEARLY EVIDENCING Value of P26,100.00
PETITIONERS' PRIOR AND ACTUAL
MATERIAL POSSESSION AND 3. That plaintiffs have been using the premises
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' mentioned for combined lumber and copra
PREDISPOSITION FOR FALSEHOOD, business. Copies of plaintiffs Lumber Certificate of
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER BEING Registration No. 2490 and PCA Copra Business
OF SAID PROPERTY AND THAT IT IS Registration No. 6265/76 are hereto attached as
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE Annexes A and B respectively; the Mayors
FORCIBLY ENTERED THE PROPERTY unnumbered copra dealers permit dated Dec. 31,
IN DISPUTE 1976 hereto attached as Annex C;
"V. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF IMPLIED xxx
ADMISSION, NOT BEING ONE OF
THE ISSUES DELIMITED IN THE PRE- 5. That defendants invasion of plaintiffs premises was
TRIAL ORDER OF 17 FEBRUARY accomplished by illegally detaining plaintiffs caretaker
1994."[5] Emilio Herrera and his daughter inside the
compound, then proceeded to saw the chain that
We resolve the issues jointly. held plaintiffs padlock on the main gate of the
Section 11, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil compound and then busted or destroyed the padlock
Procedure, as amended, provides that material that closes the backyard gate or exit. Later, they
averments in the complaint, other than those as to forcibly opened the lock in the upstairs room of
the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be plaintiff Agnes J. Lims quarters and defendants
deemed admitted when not specifically immediately filled it with other occupants now. Copy
denied. Section 10 of the same Rule provides the of the caretakers (Emilio Herrera) statement
manner in which specific denial must be made: describing in detail is hereto attached as Annex D;

"Section 10. Specific Denial. A defendant must x x x.[7]

specify each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, The Court of Appeals then concluded that since
shall set forth the substance of the matters upon petitioners did not deny specifically in their answer
which he relies to support his denial. Where a the above-quoted allegations in the complaint, they
defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, judicially admitted that Ramon and Agnes Lim,
he shall specify so much of it as is true and material respondents, were in prior physical possession of the
and shall deny only the remainder. Where a subject property, and the action for forcible entry
defendant is without knowledge or information which they filed against private respondents (spouses
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material Gaza) must be decided in their favor. The defense of
averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, private respondents that they are the registered
and this shall have the effect of a denial." owners of the subject property is unavailing.
We observe that the Court of Appeals failed to
Three (3) modes of specific denial are consider paragraph 2 of petitioners answer quoted as
contemplated by the above provisions, namely: (1) by follows:
specifying each material allegation of the fact in the
complaint, the truth of which the defendant does not
admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the "2. That defendants specifically deny the allegations
substance of the matters which he will rely upon to in paragraph 2 and 3 of the complaint for want of
support his denial; (2) by specifying so much of an knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
averment in the complaint as is true and material and to the truth thereof, the truth of the matter being those
denying only the remainder; (3) by stating that the alleged in the special and affirmative defenses of the
defendant is without knowledge or information defendants;"[8]
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment in the complaint, which has the effect of a Clearly, petitioners specifically denied the
denial.[6] allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
complaint that respondents have prior and
The Court of Appeals held that spouses Gaza, continuous possession of the disputed property which
petitioners, failed to deny specifically, in their answer, they used for their lumber and copra
business. Petitioners did not merely allege they have that respondents have been in prior and actual
no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief physical possession of the property. Actually,
as to truth of those allegations in the complaint, but petitioners are repudiating vehemently respondents
added the following: possession, stressing that they (petitioners) are the
registered owners and lawful occupants thereof.
"SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondents' reliance on Warner Barnes and
Co., Ltd. vs. Reyes[10] in maintaining that petitioners
"That defendants hereby reiterate, incorporate and made an implied admission in their answer is
restate the foregoing and further allege: misplaced. In the cited case, the defendants' answer
merely alleged that they were "without knowledge or
"5. That the complaint states no cause of action; information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the material averments of the remainder of the
"From the allegations of plaintiffs, it appears that their complaint" and "that they hereby reserve the right to
possession of the subject property was not supported present an amended answer with special defenses
by any concrete title or right, nowhere in the and counterclaim."[11] In the instant case, petitioners
complaint that they alleged either as an owner or enumerated their special and affirmative defenses in
lessee, hence, the alleged possession of plaintiffs is their answer. They also specified therein each
questionable from all aspects. Defendants Sps. allegation in the complaint being denied by
Napoleon Gaza and Evelyn Gaza being the them. They particularly alleged they are the
registered owner of the subject property has all the registered owners and lawful possessors of the land
right to enjoy the same, to use it, as an owner and in and denied having wrested possession of the
support thereof, a copy of the transfer certificate of premises from the respondents through force,
title No. T-47263 is hereto attached and marked as intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth. They
Annex "A- Gaza" and a copy of the Declaration of asserted that respondents' purported possession is
Real Property is likewise attached and marked as "questionable from all aspects." They also averred
Annex "B- Gaza" to form an integral part hereof; that they own all the personal properties enumerated
in respondents' complaint, except the two
carabaos. Indeed, nowhere in the answer can we
"6. That considering that the above-entitled case is
discern an implied admission of the allegations of the
an ejectment case, and considering further that the
complaint, specifically the allegation that petitioners
complaint did not state or there is no showing that the
have priority of possession.
matter was referred to a Lupon for conciliation under
the provisions of P.D. No. 1508, the Revised Rule on Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in declaring
Summary Procedure of 1991, particularly Section 18 that herein petitioners impliedly admitted
thereof provides that such a failure is jurisdictional, respondents' allegation that they have prior and
hence, subject to dismissal; continuous possession of the property.

"7. That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over We now resolve the basic substantial issue. In
the subject of the action or suit; an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove
that he was in prior possession of the land or building
and that he was deprived thereof by means of force,
"The complaint is for forcible entry and the plaintiffs intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. [12] It must be
were praying for indemnification in the sum stressed, though, that he cannot succeed where it
of P350,000.00 for those copra, lumber, tools, and appears that, as between himself and the defendant,
machinery listed in par. 4 of the complaint the latter had a possession antedating his own. [13] To
and P100,000.00 for unrealized income in the use of ascertain this, it is proper to look at the situation as it
the establishment, considering the foregoing amounts existed before the first act of spoliation occurred.
not to be rentals, Section 1 A (1) and (2) of the [14]
Such determination in this case requires a review
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure prohibits of factual evidence, generally proscribed in a petition
recovery of the same, hence, the Honorable Court like this.[15] Considering, however, the conflicting
can not acquire jurisdiction over the same. Besides, factual findings of the MTC and RTC on one hand,
the defendants Napoleon Gaza and Evelyn Gaza and the Court of Appeals on the other, this Court
being the owners of those properties cited in par. 4 of takes exception to the general rule in order to resolve
the complaint except for those copra and two (2) live the factual issues raised by the parties.
carabaos outside of the subject premises, plaintiffs
have no rights whatsoever in claiming damages that Petitioners possession of the property has been
it may suffer, as and by way of proof of ownership of sufficiently established by evidence. The title to the
said properties cited in paragraph 4 of the complaint property (TCT No. T-47263) is in the name of
attached herewith are bunched of documents to form petitioner Napoleon Gaza. On record is a deed of
an integral part hereof; sale showing that he bought the land in 1961 from
Angeles Vda. de Urrutia. Petitioner also presented
"8. That plaintiffs' allegation that Emilio Herrera was receipts of payment of realty taxes.
illegally detained together with his daughter was not A disinterested witness, Barangay Secretary
true and in support thereof, attached herewith is a Victorio Conducto of Sta. Maria, Calauag, Quezon, in
copy of said Emilio Herrera's statement and marked his Affidavit attached to the instant petition, [16] stated
as Annex "C-Gaza." that since 1968, spouses Gaza have been in
possession of the property and that respondents
x x x x x x x x x."[9] never occupied the property even for business
purposes. Upon the closure of their business,
The above-quoted paragraph 2 and Special and petitioners designated Numeriano Ernesto and
Affirmative Defenses contained in petitioners answer Renato Petil as caretakers of the lot. Upon the other
glaringly show that petitioners did not admit impliedly hand, respondents' allegation of prior possession of
the premises is anchored on spurious
documents. The Lumber Certificate of Registration of
Business Name No. 78-2490, for one, does not
specifically refer to the disputed property. It was
issued to them at a different address. Tax Declaration
No. 35-81-220 in the name of R. J. Lim is not a
certified true copy of the original.[17] Also,
respondents' purported PCA Certificate of
Registration No. 6265/76 as copra dealer[18] and the
Mayor's Permit[19] are expired documents. Not even
their supposed caretaker, Emilio Herrera, submitted
an affidavit confirming that they are the lawful
possessors of the property.
Furthermore, respondent Agnes Lim was later
convicted by the MTC of Calauag, Quezon in
Criminal Case No. 7405 for trespassing into the
subject property.[20] The MTC Decision confirms the
falsity of respondents' claim of prior possession. It
bears emphasis that the MTC Decision was
affirmed in toto by the RTC of Calauag, Quezon,
Branch 63 in Criminal Case No. 2725-C.[21]
Where a dispute over possession arises
between two persons, the person first having actual
possession is the one who is entitled to maintain the
action granted by law; otherwise, a mere usurper
without any right whatever, might enter upon the
property of another and, by allowing himself to be
ordered off, could acquire the right to maintain the
action of forcible entry and detainer, however
momentary his intrusion might have been.[22]
In this case, evidence clearly shows that the
petitioners are the true owners and, therefore, the
lawful possessors of the land. Verily, respondents
allegation of actual possession and that petitioners
deprived them of such possession by means of force,
intimidation and threat are clearly untenable.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and
the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G. R. SP No. 36997 dated March 12, 1996
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
RTC, Branch 63, Calauag, Quezon in Civil Case No.
C-1031 affirming the MTC Decision dismissing
respondents complaint is REINSTATED, with
modification in the sense that the award of moral and
exemplary damages in favor of petitioners is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Corona,
and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.