GERMAN MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES V.

COURT OF APPEALS
177 SCRA 495

FACTS:
Spouses Jose issued a power of attorney in favor of petitioner for the development of their parcel of land into a
subdivision. Private respondents were occupying the land and petitioner advised them to vacate but they
refused. Thereafter, petitioner continued their development and construction. Respondents then filed a case for
forcible entry. The trial court dismissed the complaint and this was reversed by the CA.

HELD:
otwithstanding petitioner!s claim that it was duly authori"ed by the owners to develop the sub#ect property, private
respondents as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner because ownership is not in issue.
$orcible entry is merely a %uieting process, and never determines the actual title to an estate. Title is not involved.

Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim ownership based on the muniment of title it presented, such evidence
doesn!t responsively address the issue of prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case. &t must be stated that regardless of
the actual condition of title to the property, the party in a peaceable %uiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand,
violence or terror. Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.
'hatver may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in favor priority in time, he
has security that entitles him to remain on the property until he has been lawfully e#ected by a person having a better right by
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.