Rico vs. Castillo

The proper remedy from an adverse decision of the RTC exercising its appellate jurisdiction in a forcible entry case is a petition for review to the CA under Rule 42, and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; moreover, in forcible entry cases, the complainants need only prove prior physical possession and not their legal entitlement to such possession.

Petitioner Edgar M. Rico leased a 1,500-square meter portion of Lot 1957 in Davao City from Milagros Villa-Abrille, represented by respondent Marilou Lopez. Upon the expiry of the lease, Villa-Abrille filed an unlawful detainer suit against Rico, which was decided in her favor and affirmed up to the Supreme Court, though the judgment was allegedly not enforced. Meanwhile, Rico filed an application for Free Patent over the same property. The dispute centers on whether Castillo et al., acting on Villa-Abrille's instructions, forcibly ejected Rico from the property.

On January 30, 2006, Edgar M. Rico filed a Complaint for forcible entry against Ernie "Toto" Castillo, Pifiano Jumo, Gerry Villegas, Alfrance Alicante, Felix Yagao, Marilou Lopez, and John Does before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City. Rico claimed to be the Free Patent applicant of an 11,015-square meter portion of Lot 1957 in Barangay Matina. He alleged that Castillo et al., acting on Lopez's instructions, forcibly entered his portion on October 11, 2005, by destroying the steel gate and demolishing structures.

Lopez, representing Milagros Villa-Abrille, countered that Lot 1957 was registered under Villa-Abrille's Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19416. Villa-Abrille had leased a 1,500-square meter portion to Rico for PHP 20,000.00 monthly. When Rico refused to vacate upon the lease's expiry, Villa-Abrille filed an unlawful detainer suit, Civil Case No. 10,033-C-D-01, which was decided in her favor and affirmed by the Supreme Court, though never enforced. Prior to the lease's expiry, on January 9, 2001, Rico filed a Free Patent application over the leased property.

The MTCC ruled in favor of Rico in the forcible entry case, finding that he had prior physical possession and was forcibly deprived of it. The RTC affirmed the MTCC. Castillo et al. then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the lower courts, characterizing Rico's possession as unlawful due to the prior unlawful detainer judgment and finding that the demolition was justified under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 7279 regarding professional squatters. Rico moved for reconsideration, but it was denied, prompting the present petition.

• Wrong Remedy: Petitioner maintained that the RTC Decision became final because respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 42.
• Binding Factual Findings: Petitioner argued that the factual findings of the trial courts are binding on the CA, and the CA made no finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Identity of Property: Petitioner asserted that the property he occupied was 200 square meters away from the property claimed by Villa-Abrille, and that the unlawful detainer decision had in fact been executed, contrary to the CA's finding.

• Illegal Occupation: Respondents asserted that Rico was illegally occupying the disputed property and had been convicted of falsification in relation to his free patent application.
• Forum Shopping: Respondents argued that Rico committed forum shopping by filing other petitions before the Court relating to the same dispute.

• Proper Remedy: Whether the proper remedy from an RTC decision in its appellate jurisdiction in a forcible entry case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it reversed the lower courts' decisions.
• Prior Physical Possession: Whether the CA erred in basing its decision on the legality of Rico's title rather than the sole issue of prior physical possession in a forcible entry case.

• Proper Remedy: No. The proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 42, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive remedies.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The CA made no finding of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC and merely substituted its own appreciation of facts and interpretation of law.
• Prior Physical Possession: Yes. The CA erred in focusing on the legality of Rico's possession; in forcible entry cases, only prior physical possession de facto is relevant.

• Proper Remedy: The Rules of Court explicitly provide that a party desiring to appeal from an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction must file a verified petition for review with the CA under Rule 42. A writ of certiorari under Rule 65 will not issue where an appeal is available, as the remedies are mutually exclusive. None of the exceptions allowing Rule 65 despite an available appeal were present.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Certiorari is a limited form of review restricted to errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment. The CA's imputed errors pertained to the RTC's appreciation of matters and facts, which are mere errors of judgment correctable by appeal. The CA exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction by substituting its own judgment for that of the lower courts without finding any grave abuse of discretion.
• Prior Physical Possession: In forcible entry cases, the only issue is who has prior possession de facto. The complainants need only prove prior physical possession, not legal entitlement. The CA's reliance on the prior unlawful detainer judgment and Section 27 of RA No. 7279 to justify the use of force was misplaced. A favorable judgment in an unlawful detainer suit does not permit the plaintiff to resort to violence to eject the respondent; proper execution procedures must be followed. Furthermore, the MTCC's Order in the unlawful detainer case indicated the writ had been implemented, making it misleading to claim it was never enforced.

• Remedies of Appeal and Certiorari are Mutually Exclusive — The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Certiorari lies only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Forcible Entry Requires Only Prior Physical Possession — In forcible entry cases, the only issue is whether the claimant has proved prior physical possession de facto. The complainants need only prove prior physical possession and not their legal entitlement to such possession. The question of ownership may only be provisionally resolved if essential to determine the better right of possession.
• Prohibition Against Self-Help in Ejectment — A favorable judgment in an unlawful detainer suit does not permit the plaintiff to resort to violence to eject the respondent. Litigants must apply for the proper writs of execution and await execution by the court's sheriff rather than resorting to force.

• "In any event, it is well-settled that in forcible entry cases, the complainants need only to prove prior physical possession and not their legal entitlement to such possession. In addition, a favorable judgment in an unlawful detainer suit does not permit the plaintiff to resort to violence to eject the respondent." — This passage encapsulates the substantive ruling on the nature of forcible entry and the prohibition against using force to enforce judgments.
• "Following the CA's logic, any litigant in an unlawful detainer case could, instead of applying for the proper writs of execution and awaiting execution by the court's sheriff, simply resort to force to remove the adverse party. Such an absurd conclusion cannot be countenanced." — This highlights the Court's rejection of the CA's reasoning that validated the use of force by the respondents.

• Guzman vs. Guzman, 706 Phil. 319 (2013) — Cited to illustrate that resort to a Rule 65 petition to assail an RTC decision in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is misplaced, and that certiorari is restricted to errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
• Esperal vs. Trompeta-Esperal, 885 Phil. 304 (2020) — Cited to emphasize that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence, or terror, not even by the owners.
• Medina vs. Spouses Nicomedes, 838 Phil. 17 (2018) — Cited for the doctrine that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available.
• Alfiler vs. Spouses Cayabyab, G.R. No. 217111 — Cited for the exceptions where the Court has allowed petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 despite the availability of appeal.

• Section 1, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Governs the proper remedy for appealing an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, requiring a verified petition for review with the CA within 15 days.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the remedy of certiorari, applicable only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and restricted to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
• Section 27, Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) — Cited by the CA to justify the demolition, allowing summary eviction of professional squatters and squatting syndicates upon identification by specified authorities. The Supreme Court found the CA's reliance on this provision misplaced in the context of a forcible entry case.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, Zalameda, and Rosario, JJ.