VOL.

395, JANUARY 16, 2003 261

Gaza vs. Lim
*
G.R. No. 126863. January 16, 2003.

SPOUSES NAPOLEON L. GAZA and EVELYN GAZA,

SPOUSES RENATO PETIL and MELY PETIL, BRGY.
SEC. VICTORIO A. CONDUCTO and BRGY. TANOD
ARTURO ALAON, petitioners, vs. RAMON J. LIM and
AGNES J. LIM, respondents.

Civil Procedure Pleadings and Practice; Specific Denial; Three

(3) Modes of Specific Denial.·Three (3) modes of specific denial are
contemplated by the above provisions, namely: (1) by 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 substance of the matters which he will rely upon to
support his denial; (2) by specifying so much of an averment in the
complaint as is true and material and denying only the remainder;
(3) by stating that the defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment in the complaint, which has the effect of a denial.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaza vs. Lim

Same; Actions; Forcible Entry; Prior Possession; In 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, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.·We now
resolve the basic substantial issue. In 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,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. It must be stressed,
though, that he cannot succeed where it appears that, as between
himself and the defendant, the latter had a possession antedating
his own. To ascertain this, it is proper to look at the situation as it
existed before the first act of spoliation occurred. Such
determination in this case requires a review of factual evidence,
generally proscribed in a petition like this.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where a dispute over possession
arises between two persons, the person first having actual possession
is the one who is entitled to maintain an action granted by law.
·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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Fernando B. Zuñiga for petitioners.
Dominador Dela Paz for private respondents.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1
The present petition for review on certiorari seeks to set
aside the Decision dated April 29, 1995 and the2 Resolution
dated October 10, 1996 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 36997 revers-

_______________

1 Filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as

amended.
2 Penned by then Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, now
Justice of this Court, and concurred in by then Associate Justice Arturo
B. Buena, also of the Court of Appeals, now retired Justice of this Court,
and Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes.

263
 VOL. 395, JANUARY 16, 2003 263
Gaza vs. Lim

ing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63,

Calauag, Quezon in Civil Case No. C-1031 for forcible
entry.
The factual milieu of this case is as follows:
On February 20, 1961, Napoleon Gaza purchased a
parcel of land with an area of 5,270 square meters located
in Barangay Sta. Maria, Calauag, Quezon, from Angeles
Vda. de Urrutia. The Register of Deeds of Lucena City then
cancelled the latterÊs title and issued Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-47263 in the name of Napoleon Gaza.
Thereafter, Napoleon Gaza and his wife Evelyn engaged
in the lumber and copra business. They constructed a huge
lumber shed on the property and installed engines,
machinery and tools for a lumber mill. They also utilized a
portion of the property as storage for copra. In 1975, they
ceased engaging in business. They padlocked the gates of
the property, leaving it to the care of Numeriano Ernesto.
When he died in 1991, spouses Gaza designated Renato
Petil as the new caretaker of the land.
On the other hand, Ramon and Agnes Lim, both half-
siblings of Napoleon Gaza, claimed that they have used the
same lot for their lumber and copra business since 1975, as
shown by Lumber Certificate of Registration No. 2490, PCA
Copra Business Registration No. 6265/76 and MayorÊs
Permit dated December 31, 1976. Sometime in November
1993, they designated Emilio Herrera as caretaker of the
property.
On November 28, 1993, the padlock of the main gate
was destroyed. According to Napoleon Gaza, the siblings
Ramon and Agnes Lim and Emilio Herrera, entered the
property by breaking the lock of the main gate. Thereafter,
they occupied a room on the second floor of the warehouse
without the consent of Renato Petil who was then outside
the premises.
For their part, Ramon and Agnes Lim maintain that on
November 28, 1993, spouses Gaza detained Emilio Herrera
and his daughter inside the compound and destroyed the
padlocks of the gates. Thereafter, said spouses forcibly
opened Agnes LimÊs quarters at the second floor of the
warehouse and occupied it.
On December 13, 1993, Ramon and Agnes Lim 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.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaza vs. Lim

On December 21, 1993, spouses Gaza filed with the same

court their answer with compulsory counterclaim.
On June 1, 1994, the MTC dismissed the complaint and
counter-claim.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63,
Calauag, Quezon, affirmed the MTC Decision with
modification, thus:

„WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations the

judgment of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED and the appeal is
DENIED with the modification that the plaintiffs are ordered to
pay the amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 by
way of exemplary damages to the defendants spouses Napoleon
Gaza and Evelyn Gaza.
3
„SO ORDERED.‰

On April 29, 1995, Ramon and Agnes Lim filed with the
Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed therein as
CA-G.R.4 SP No. 36997. In its Decision, the Court of
Appeals reversed and set aside the Decision of the RTC,
thus:

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GIVEN

DUE COURSE. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calauag,
Quezon, Branch 63, affirming the decision of the Municipal Trial
Court, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is
rendered ordering the private respondents and all persons claiming
rights under them to vacate the premises in question and surrender
its possession to the petitioners.
„SO ORDERED.‰

Spouses Gaza filed a motion for reconsideration but was

denied. Hence, they filed with this Court the present
petition for review on certiorari ascribing to the Court of
Appeals the following errors:

„I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING

TO RULE THAT THERE WAS NO IMPLIED
 ADMISSION ON THE PART OF PETITIONERS
THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN IN
PRIOR AND ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION
OF SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE 1975.

_______________

3 Penned by Judge Rodolfo V. Garduque, Rollo, at pp. 237-245.

4 Rollo, at pp. 65-72.

265

VOL. 395, JANUARY 16, 2003 265

Gaza vs. Lim

„II . THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED

ITS DISCRETION IN RESOLVING THE INSTANT
CASE ON MERE TECHNICALITIES AND IN
APPLYING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN A
VERY RIGID MANNER, THEREBY DENYING
PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
„III. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN IGNORING THE
VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN SUBSTANTIATING THEIR
PRIORITY IN POSSESSION OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY, SAID ERROR BECOMING EVEN
MORE MANIFEST IN THE LIGHT OF THE
GLARING PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGED
POSSESSION.
„IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FINAL AND
EXECUTORY JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF
RESPONDENT AGNES LIM FOR TRESPASSING
INTO SUBJECT PROPERTY, CLEARLY
EVIDENCING PETITIONERSÊ PRIOR AND
ACTUAL MATERIAL POSSESSION AND
PRIVATE RESPONDENTSÊ PREDISPOSITION
FOR FALSEHOOD, THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER BEING OF SAID PROPERTY AND
THAT IT IS PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO
HAVE FORCIBLY ENTERED THE PROPERTY IN
DISPUTE
 „V. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF IMPLIED
ADMISSION, NOT BEING ONE OF THE ISSUES
DELIMITED IN THE5
PRETRIAL ORDER OF 17
FEBRUARY 1994.‰

We resolve the issues jointly.

Section 11, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended, provides that material averments in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied. Section 10 of the same Rule provides
the manner in which specific denial must be made:

„Section 10. Specific Denial.·A defendant must specify each

material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant
desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much
of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of a material

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 23-24.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaza vs. Lim

averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this

shall have the effect of a denial.‰

Three (3) modes of specific denial are contemplated by the

above provisions, namely: (1) by 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 substance of the matters which he will
rely upon to support his denial; (2) by specifying so much of
an averment in the complaint as is true and material and
denying only the remainder; (3) by stating that the
defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of a material 6averment in the
complaint, which has the effect of a denial.
 The Court of Appeals held that spouses Gaza,
petitioners, failed to deny specifically, in their answer,
paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the complaint for forcible entry
quoted as follows:

„x x x

„2. That plaintiffs are the actual and joint occupants and in
prior continuous physical possession since 1975 up to Nov.
28, 1993 of a certain commercial compound described as
follows:

„A certain parcel of land situated in Bo. Sta. Maria, Calauag,

Quezon. Bounded on the N., & E., by Julian de Claro; on the W., by
Luis Urrutia. Containing an area of 5,270 square meters, more or
less. Declared under Ramon J. LimÊs Tax Dec. No. 4576 with an Ass.
Value of P26,100.00

„3. That plaintiffs have been using the premises mentioned for
combined lumber and copra business. Copies of plaintiffsÊ
Lumber Certificate of Registration No. 2490 and PCA Copra
Business Registration No. 6265/76 are hereto attached as
Annexes „A‰ and „B‰ respectively; the MayorÊs unnumbered
copra dealerÊs permit dated Dec. 31, 1976 hereto attached as
Annex „C‰;

„x x x

„5. That defendantsÊ invasion of plaintiffsÊ premises was

accomplished by illegally detaining plaintiffsÊ caretaker
Emilio Herrera and his daughter inside the compound, then
proceeded to saw the chain that held plaintiffsÊ padlock on
the main gate of the compound and then busted or
destroyed the padlock that closes the backyard gate or exit.
Later, they forcibly opened the lock in the upstairs room of
plaintiff Agnes J. LimÊs quarters and defendants
immediately filled it with other occupants now.

_______________

6 Capital Motors Corporation vs. Yabut, 32 SCRA 1 (1970).

267

VOL. 395, JANUARY 16, 2003 267

Gaza vs. Lim
 Copy of the caretakerÊs (Emilio Herrera) statement
describing in detail is hereto attached as Annex „D‰;
7
„x x x.‰

The Court of Appeals then concluded that since petitioners

did not deny specifically in their answer the above-quoted
allegations in the complaint, they judicially admitted that
Ramon and Agnes Lim, respondents, „were in prior
physical possession of the subject property, and the action
for forcible entry which they filed against private
respondents (spouses Gaza) must be decided in their favor.
The defense of private respondents that they are the
registered owners of the subject property is unavailing.‰
We observe that the Court of Appeals failed to consider
paragraph 2 of petitionersÊ answer quoted as follows:

„2. That defendants specifically deny the allegations in

paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint for want of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth thereof, the truth of the matter
being those alleged in the 8special and affirmative
defenses of the defendants;‰

Clearly, petitioners specifically denied the allegations

contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint that
respondents have prior and continuous possession of the
disputed property which they used for their lumber and
copra business. Petitioners did not merely allege they have
no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
truth of those allegations in the complaint, but added the
following:

„SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

„That defendants hereby reiterate, incorporate and restate the

foregoing and further allege:
„5. That the complaint states no cause of action;
„From the allegations of plaintiffs, it appears that their
possession of the subject property was not supported by any
concrete title or right, nowhere in the complaint that they alleged
either as an owner or lessee, hence, the alleged possession of
plaintiffs is questionable from all aspects. Defendants Sps.
Napoleon Gaza and Evelyn Gaza being the registered owner of the
subject property has all the right to enjoy the same, to use it,
_______________

7 Rollo, at pp. 15-17.

8 Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, id., at p. 85.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaza vs. Lim

as an owner and in support thereof, a copy of the transfer certificate

of title No. T-47263 is hereto attached and marked as Annex „A-
Gaza‰ and a copy of the Declaration of Real Property is likewise
attached and marked as Annex „B-Gaza‰ to form an integral part
hereof;

„6. That considering that the above-entitled case is an

ejectment case, and considering further that the complaint
did not state or there is no showing that the matter was
referred to a Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of
P.D. No. 1508, the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure of
1991, particularly Section 18 thereof provides that such a
failure is jurisdictional, hence, subject to dismissal;
„7. That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the
subject of the action or suit;

„The complaint is for forcible entry and the plaintiffs were

praying for indemnification in the sum of P350,000.00 for those
copra, lumber, tools, and machinery listed in par. 4 of the complaint
and P100,000.00 for unrealized income in the use of the
establishment, considering the foregoing amounts not to be rentals,
Section 1 A (1) and (2) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
prohibits recovery of the same, hence, the Honorable Court can not
acquire jurisdiction over the same. Besides, the defen-dants
Napoleon Gaza and Evelyn Gaza being the owners of those
properties cited in par. 4 of the complaint except for those copra and
two (2) live carabaos outside of the subject premises, plaintiffs have
no rights whatsoever in claiming damages that it may suffer, as and
by way of proof of ownership of said properties cited in paragraph 4
of the complaint attached herewith are bunch of documents to form
an integral part hereof;

„8. That plaintiffsÊ allegation that Emilio Herrera was illegally

detained together with his daughter was not true and in
support thereof, attached herewith is a copy of said Emilio
HerreraÊs statement and marked as Annex „C-Gaza.‰
 9
xxx xxx x x x.‰

The above-quoted paragraph 2 and Special and Affirmative

Defenses contained in petitionersÊ answer glaringly show
that petitioners did not admit impliedly that respondents
have been in prior and actual physical possession of the
property. Actually, petitioners are repudiating vehemently
respondentsÊ possession, stressing that they (petitioners)
are the registered owners and lawful occupants thereof.
RespondentsÊ
10
reliance on Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd.
vs. Reyes in maintaining that petitioners made an implied
admission in their

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 85-86.

10 103 Phil. 662 (1598), cited in Capitol Motors vs. Yabut, 32 SCRA 1 4-
5 (1970).

269

VOL. 395, JANUARY 16, 2003 269

Gaza vs. Lim

answer is misplaced. In the cited case, the defendantsÊ

answer merely alleged that they were „without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the material averments of the remainder of the complaint‰
and „that they hereby reserve the right to present an 11
amended answer with special defenses and counterclaim.‰
In the instant case, petitioners enumerated their special
and affirmative defenses in their answer. They also
specified therein each allegation in the complaint being
denied by them. They particularly alleged they are the
registered owners and lawful possessors of the land and
denied having wrested possession of the premises from the
respondents through force, intimidation, threat, strategy
and stealth. They asserted that respondentsÊ purported
possession is „questionable from all aspects.‰ They also
averred that they own all the personal properties
enumerated in respondentsÊ complaint, except the two
carabaos. Indeed, nowhere in the answer can we discern an
implied admission of the allegations of the complaint,
specifically the allegation that petitioners have priority of
possession.
 Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that
herein petitioners impliedly admitted respondentsÊ
allegation that they have prior and continuous possession
of the property.
We now resolve the basic substantial issue. In 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 by12 means of force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth. It must be stressed, though, that he
cannot succeed where it appears that, as between himself
and the defendant,
13
the latter had a possession antedating
his own. To ascertain this, it is proper to look at the
situation 14as it existed before the first act of spoliation
occurred. Such determination in this case requires a
review of factual15 evidence, generally proscribed in a
petition like this. Considering, however, the conflicting
factual findings of the MTC and RTC on

_______________

11 Id., at p. 663.
12 Benitez vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 242, 249 (1997).
13 Masallo vs. Cesar, 39 Phil. 134, 137 (1918).
14 Id.
15 Siguan vs. Lim, 318 SCRA 725, 735 (1999).

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaza vs. Lim

one hand, and the Court of Appeals on the other, this Court
takes exception to the general rule in order to resolve the
factual issues raised by the parties.
PetitionersÊ possession of the property has been
sufficiently established by evidence. The title to the
property (TCT No. T-47263) is in the name of petitioner
Napoleon Gaza. On record is a deed of sale showing that he
bought the land in 1961 from Angeles Vda. de Urrutia.
Petitioner also presented receipts of payment of realty
taxes.
A disinterested witness, Barangay Secretary Victorio
Conducto of Sta. Maria, Calauag,16 Quezon, in his Affidavit
attached to the instant petition, stated that since 1968,
spouses Gaza have been in possession of the property and
that respondents never occupied the property even for
business purposes. Upon the closure of their business,
petitioners designated Numeriano Ernesto and Renato
Petil as caretakers of the lot. Upon the other hand,
respondentsÊ 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 17
of R.J. Lim is not a
certified true copy of the original. Also, respondentsÊ
purported PCA 18
Certificate of Registration 19No. 6265/76 as
copra dealer and the MayorÊs Permit 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 20
No. 7405
for trespassing into the subject property. The MTC
Decision confirms the falsity of respondentsÊ claim of prior
possession. It bears emphasis that the MTC Decision was
affirmed in toto by the RTC of21 Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63
in Criminal Case No. 2725-C.

_______________

16 Annex „J‰, Rollo, at pp. 214-216.

17 Rollo, at p. 226.
18 Id., at p. 82.
19 Id., at p. 83.
20 Annex „AA‰ of the petition, Rollo, at pp. 292-295.
21 Annex „BB‰ of the petition, id., at pp. 296-301.

271

VOL. 395, JANUARY 16, 2003 271

Gaza vs. Lim

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
 22
momentary his intrusion might have been.
In this case, evidence clearly shows that the petitioners
are the true owners and, therefore, the lawful possessors of
the land. Verily, respondentsÊ 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 respondentsÊ 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.

Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside. That

of the trial court reinstated.

Note.·Rule that speedy resolution of unlawful detainer

cases is a matter of public policy should equally apply with
full force in forcible entry cases. (Gachon vs. Devera, Jr.,
274 SCRA 540 [1997])

··o0o··

_______________

22 Masallo vs. Cesar, 39 Phil. 134, 137 (1918).

272

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.