You are on page 1of 1

MASALLO v.

CESAR
GR No. 12449 Nov. 13, 1918
Fisher

SUBJECT: wrongful seizure

FACTS:
Eulogio Masallo (plaintiff) brought an action of eviction in the lower court against Maria Cesar
(defendant), averring that he is the owner of the tract of land in question.

On March 8, 1915, while Maria was in possession of the land in question, one Matea Crispino
executed a deed to sell and transfer to Eulogio the land in question. Matea admitted that she has
not been in possession of the land, which is the subject matter of her deed; and that the land was
mortgaged by her to one Eugenia Perez, who testified that she had been in possession of the land
from 1889 until 1914.

Sometime in June 1915, after the execution of the deed, Eulogio went upon the land with his
laborers to plow it. However, Maria, by force and intimidation, deprived Eulogio of the
possession of the land, and has since that time withheld it from him.

Maria answered denying the averments of the complaint and asserted, by way of defense, that the
land in question is her property and has been in her possession without interruption for more than
20 years.

TC: ruled in favor of Eulogio.

ISSUE: WON Eulogio (the buyer of the land) or Maria (the one in possession of the land) owns
the land in question.

HELD:
Under Sec. 80, Code of Civil Procedure, where a dispute over possession arises between 2
persons, the person first having actual possession, as between them, is the one who is entitled to
maintain the action.

The purpose of the action of forcible entry and detainer is to make the right of possession secure.
The remedy of forcible entry and detainer was intended to be used against the usurper and not
against the person wronged.

In an action of forcible entry and detainer instituted against an intruder who enters upon the land
for FISTS, the plaintiff must prove a prior possession. This means that as between the 2
contending parties the law concedes the right of action to the party whose actual and peaceful
possession antedates that of the other.

The SC ruled that a person who does not have actual possession of real property cannot transfer
constructive possession by the execution and delivery of a public document by which the title to
the land is transferred.

In the case at bar, the mere execution and delivery of the deed did not constitute a delivery of
possession. Matea, the seller, admits that she did not have possession of the land when she
executed and delivered her deed to Eulogio.

You might also like