64. Rosario vs.

Gerry Roxas Foundation the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily
implies the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that is
G.R. No. 170575. June 8, 2011.* necessary.” The employment of force, in this case, can be deduced from
SPOUSES MANUEL AND FLORENTINA DEL ROSARIO, petitioners’ allegation that respondent took full control and possession of the
petitioners, vs. GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION, INC., respondent. subject property without their consent and authority.
Actions; Admissions; Judicial Admissions; Words and Phrases; A Same; Same; Same; Same; “Stealth” and “Strategy,” Explained.
judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a —“‘Stealth,’ on the other hand, is defined as any secret, sly, or clandestine
trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within residence of
dispense with some rules of practice necessary to be observed and complied another without permission,” while strategy connotes the employment of
with.—“A judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in the machinations or artifices to gain possession of the subject property. The CA
progress of a trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise found that based on the petitioners’ allegations in their complaint,
necessary to dispense with some rules of practice necessary to be observed “respondent’s entry on the land of the petitioners was by stealth x x x.”
and complied with.” Correspondingly, “facts alleged in the complaint are However, stealth as defined requires a clandestine character which is not
deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him.” “The allegations, availing in the instant case as the entry of the respondent into the property
statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against appears to be with the knowledge of the petitioners as shown by petitioners’
the pleader.” allegation in their complaint that “[c]onsidering the personalities behind the
Same; Ejectment; Words and Phrases; “Forcible Entry” and “Unlawful defendant foundation and considering further that it is plaintiff’s nephew, then
Detainer,” Distinguished.—This Court, in Sumulong v. Court of Appeals, 232 the vice-mayor, and now the Mayor of the City of Roxas Antonio A. del
SCRA 372 (1994), differentiated the distinct causes of action in forcible Rosario, although without any legal or contractual right, who transacted with
entry vis-à-vis unlawful detainer, to wit: Forcible entry and unlawful detainer the foundation, plaintiffs did not interfere with the activities of the foundation
are two distinct causes of action defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of using their property.” To this Court’s mind, this allegation if true, also
Court. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or illustrates strategy.
building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In Same; Same; Forcible Entry; Where the plaintiffs maintained that the
unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the defendant took possession and control of the subject property without any
expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, contractual or legal basis, the foundation of their complaint is one for forcible
express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the entry.—“In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land
beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto. In or building by means of force, intimi-
unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by 416
the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
possession is the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of dation, threat, strategy, or stealth.” “[W]here the defendant’s possession
the defendant's right to continue in possession. of the property is illegal ab initio,” the summary action for forcible entry
_______________ (detentacion) is the remedy to recover possession. In their Complaint,
* FIRST DIVISION. petitioners maintained that the respondent took possession and control of the
415 subject property without any contractual or legal basis. Assuming that these
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 415 allegations are true, it hence follows that respondent’s possession was illegal
Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. from the very beginning. Therefore, the foundation of petitioners’ complaint is
Same; Same; Same; Forcible Entry; The words “by force, intimidation, one for forcible entry—that is “the forcible exclusion of the original possessor
threat, strategy or stealth” shall include every situation or condition under by a person who has entered without right.” Thus, and as correctly found by
which one person can wrongfully enter upon real property and exclude the CA, there can be no tolerance as petitioners alleged that respondent’s
another, who has had prior possession, therefrom.—“The words ‘by force, possession was illegal at the inception. Corollarily, since the deprivation of
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth’ shall include every situation or physical possession, as alleged in petitioners’ Complaint and as earlier
condition under which one person can wrongfully enter upon real property discussed, was attended by strategy and force, this Court finds that the
and exclude another, who has had prior possession, therefrom.” “The proper remedy for the petitioners was to file a Complaint for Forcible Entry
foundation of the action is really the forcible exclusion of the original and not the instant suit for unlawful detainer.
possessor by a person who has entered without right.” “The act of going on

Page 1 of 6
 Same; Same; Same; Prescription; Where the action for forcible entry _______________
was filed beyond one year from dispossession, the Complaint failed to state 2 Co Tiamco v. Diaz, 75 Phil. 672, 683-684 (1946).
a valid cause of action.—Petitioners likewise alleged in their Complaint that 3 CA Rollo, pp. 98-104; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican
respondent took possession and occupancy of subject property in 1991. and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Enrico A.
Considering that the action for forcible entry must be filed within one year Lanzanas.
from the time of dispossession, the action for forcible entry has already 4 Id., at pp. 118-119.
prescribed when petitioners filed their Complaint in 2003. As a consequence, 5 Id., at p. 99.
the Complaint failed to state a valid cause of action against the respondent. 418
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of Appeals. Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. On July 7, 2003, petitioners filed a Complaint 6 for Unlawful Detainer
  Arrojado, Serrano & Calizo for petitioners. against the respondent before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Roxas City, docketed as Civil Case No. V-2391. Said complaint contains,
The allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed for are the among others, the following significant allegations:
determinants of the nature of the action1 and of which “3. Plaintiffs are the true, absolute and registered owner[s] of a parcel of
_______________ land, situated at Dayao, Roxas City and covered by and described in
1 Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo,  453 Phil. 170, 176-177; 405 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18397 issued to the plaintiffs by the Register
SCRA 273, 280 (2003). of Deeds for Roxas City as evidenced by a xerox copy thereof which is
417 hereto attached as Annex “A”.
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 417 4. Sometime in 1991, without the consent and authority of the plaintiffs,
Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. defendant took full control and possession of the subject property, developed
court has jurisdiction over the action.2 the same and use[d] it for commercial purposes.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the April 26, 2005 x x x x
Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 87784 which 7. Plaintiffs have allowed the defendant for several years, to make use
dismissed the Petition for Review before it. Also assailed is the CA of the land without any contractual or legal basis. Hence, defendant’s
Resolution4 dated November 15, 2005 denying the Motion for possession of the subject property is only by tolerance.
Reconsideration thereto. 8. But [plaintiffs’] patience has come to its limits. Hence, sometime in
Factual Antecedents the last quarter of 2002, plaintiffs made several demands upon said
The controversy between petitioners Manuel and Florentina Del Rosario defendant to settle and/or pay rentals for the use of the property.
and respondent Gerry Roxas Foundation Inc. emanated from a Complaint for x x x x
Unlawful Detainer filed by the former against the latter, the surrounding 10. Notwithstanding receipt of the demand letters, defendant failed and
circumstances relative thereto as summarized by the CA in its assailed refused, as it continues to fail and refuse to pay reasonable monthly rentals
Decision are as follows: for the use and occupancy of the land, and to vacate the subject premises
“The petitioner Manuel del Rosario appears to be the registered owner of despite the lapse of the fifteen-day period specified in the said demand
Lot 3-A of Psd-301974 located in Roxas City which is described in and letters. Consequently, defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18397 of the Registry of Deeds subject property from the plaintiffs, who are the owners thereof.” 7
for the City of Roxas. Upon service of summons, respondent filed its Answer 8 dated July 31,
Sometime in 1991, the respondent, as a legitimate foundation, took 2003 where it averred that:
possession and occupancy of said land by virtue of a memorandum of _______________
agreement entered into by and between it and the City of Roxas. Its 6 Rollo, pp. 139-141.
possession and occupancy of said land is in the character of being lessee 7 Id., at pp. 140-141.
thereof. 8 Id., at pp. 129-138.
In February and March 2003, the petitioners served notices upon the 419
respondent to vacate the premises of said land. The respondent did not heed VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 419
such notices because it still has the legal right to continue its possession and Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
occupancy of said land.”5

Page 2 of 6
 “3. The defendant ADMITS the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale which is hereto attached as Annex
the Complaint to the effect that the defendant “took full control and “3” and made an integral part hereof. While, admittedly, the said certificate of
possession of the subject property, developed the same” and has been using title is still in the name of the plaintiffs, nevertheless, the ownership of the
the premises in accordance with its agreements with the City of Roxas and property covered therein has already transferred to the City of Roxas upon its
the purposes of the defendant corporation without any objection or opposition delivery to it. Article 1496 of the Civil Code provides that, ownership of the
of any kind on the part of the plaintiffs for over twenty-two long years; the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in
defendant specifically DENIES the allegations contained in the last part of any of the ways specified in articles 1497 to 1501, or in any other manner
this paragraph 4 of the Complaint that the defendant has used the property signifying an agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to
leased for commercial purposes, the truth of the matter being that the the vendee. It is also provided under Article 1498 of the Civil Code that, when
defendant has used and [is] still using the property only for civic non-profit the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be
endeavors hewing closely to purposes of the defendant Gerry Roxas equivalent to the delivery of the thing, which is the object of the contract, if
Foundation Inc., inter alia,  devoted to general welfare, protection, and from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred.
upliftment of the people of Roxas City, Capiz, and in Panay Island, and Upon execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Annex “3”), the plaintiffs have
elsewhere in the Philippines; that the Foundation has spent out of its own relinquished ownership of the property subject thereof in favor of the vendee,
funds for the compliance of its avowed aims and purposes, up to the present, City of Roxas. Necessarily, the possession of the property subject of the said
more than P25M, and that all the improvements, including a beautiful Deed of Absolute Sale now pertains to the City of Roxas and the plaintiffs
auditorium built in the leased premises of the Foundation “shall accrue to the have no more right, whatsoever, to the possession of the same. It is
CITY (of Roxas), free from any compensation whatsoever, upon the defendant foundation by virtue of the Memorandums of Agreement (Annexes
expiration of this Lease” (Memorandum of Agreement, Annex “2” hereof), “1” and “2” hereof), which has the legal right to have possession of the
eighteen (18) years hence; subject property;”9
x x x x After the MTCC issued an Order setting the case for preliminary
5.  The defendant specifically DENIES the allegations set forth in conference, respondent filed on October 20, 2003 a Motion to Resolve its
paragraph 7 of the Complaint, the truth being that the defendant took Defenses on Forum Shopping and Lack
possession of the subject property by virtue of Memorandums of Agreement, _______________
photo-copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes “1” and “2” and made 9 Id., at pp. 129-132.
integral parts hereof, entered into by defendant and the City of Roxas, which 421
is the true and lawful owner thereof; thus, the possession of the subject VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 421
property by the defendant foundation is lawful, being a lessee thereof; Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
x x x x of Cause of Action. Records show that before the instant case was filed,
8.  The defendant ADMITS the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the City of Roxas had already filed a case against petitioners for “Surrender
the Complaint that defendant refused to pay monthly rental to the plaintiffs of Withheld Duplicate Certificate Under Section 107, [Presidential Decree
and to vacate the premises, but specifically DENIES the rest of the No.] 1529” docketed as Special Case No. SPL-020-03 with the Regional Trial
allegations thereof, the truth being that defendant has no obligation Court (RTC) of Roxas City. Subsequently, on October 27, 2003, petitioners
whatsoever, to the plaintiffs, as they are neither the owners or lessors of the filed their Opposition to the said Motion.
land occupied by defendant;
x x x x420 Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED On November 24, 2003, the MTCC issued an Order 10 resolving the
Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. respondent’s Motion. In the said Order, the MTCC held that:
As and by way of— “The plaintiffs [have] no cause of action against herein defendant. The
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE defendant is the lessee of the City of Roxas of the parcel of land in question.
The defendant repleads the foregoing allegations, and avers further that: There has been no previous contractual relationship between the plaintiffs
12. The plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendant. Del Rosarios and the defendant Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. affecting the
The leased property does not belong to the plaintiffs. The property title of the land leased by the [Gerry] Roxas Foundation. The Gerry Roxas
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18397, [is] occupied by the Foundation, Inc. has not unlawfully withheld the possession of the land it is
[defendant] as [lessee] of the City of Roxas since 1991, the latter having leasing from its lessor. Its right to the physical possession of the land leased
acquired it by purchase from the plaintiffs way back on February 19, 1981, as by it from the City of Roxas subsists and continues to subsist until the

Page 3 of 6
termination of the contract of lease according to its terms and pursuant to of the property was deemed corroborative of the truthfulness and authenticity
law. of the deed of sale.
The defendant had presented as its main defense that the property was WHEREFORE, although this Court finds the defense on forum shopping
already sold by the plaintiffs to the present lessor of the property, the City of interposed by the defendant to be untenable and unmeritorious, and hence,
Roxas thru a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 19, 1981 executed by denied; this Court still finds the pleadings filed by the plaintiffs-spouses to be
herein [plaintiff] spouses as vendors. without a cause of action and hence, dismisses this instant complaint. With
Plaintiffs had not directly and specifically shown that the purported Deed cost against the plaintiffs.423
of Absolute Sale does not exist; rather, they contend that said document is VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 423
merely defective. They had not even denied the signatories to the said Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
Contract of Sale; specifically the authenticity of the spouses-plaintiffs SO ORDERED.”11
signatures; all that plaintiffs did merely referred to it as null and void and Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
highly questionable without any specifications. On appeal, the RTC of Roxas City, Branch 17 rendered a
_______________ Decision12 dated July 9, 2004 affirming the MTCC Order.
10 CA Rollo, pp. 69-73; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Filpia D. Del Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Castillo. Aggrieved, petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Review. However,
422 the CA, in a Decision13 dated April 26, 2005, dismissed the petition and
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED affirmed the assailed Decision of the RTC.Petitioners timely filed a Motion for
Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. Reconsideration14 which was, however, denied in a Resolution 15 dated
When the parties’ pleadings fail to tender any issue of fact, either November 15, 2005.
because all the factual allegations have been admitted expressly or impliedly; Issues
as when a denial is a general denial; there is no need of conducting a trial, Still undaunted, petitioners now come to this Court on a Petition for
since there is no need of presenting evidence anymore. The case is then ripe Review on Certiorari raising the following issues:
for judicial determination, either through a judgment on the pleadings (Rules _______________
of Court, Rule 34) or by summary judgment under Rule 35, Rules of Court. 11 Id., at pp. 71-73.
In the instant case, plaintiffs alleged that sometime in 1991, without the 12 Id., at pp. 22-27; penned by Judge Edward B. Contreras. The
consent and authority of the plaintiffs, defendant took full control and dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
possession of the subject property, developed the same and use[d] it for Wherefore, premises considered, the instant appeal is denied for lack of
commercial purposes. x x x for so many years, plaintiffs patiently waited for merit, and the questioned Order of the court a quo in Civil Case No. V-2391
someone to make representation to them regarding the use of the subject is affirmed.
property, but the same never happened. Plaintiff[s] have allowed the 13 Id., at pp. 98-104. The dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:
defendant for several years, to make use of the land without any contractual WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered by us DISMISSING the
or legal basis. Hence, defendant’s possession of the subject property is only petition filed in this case and AFFIRMING the assailed decision and order of
by tolerance. the RTC in Roxas City in Civil Case No. V-009-04.
x x x x 14 Id., at pp. 105-111.
Defendant admits the allegations of the plaintiffs that the defendant “took 15 Id., at pp. 118-119.
full control and possession of the subject property, developed the same” and 424
has been using the premises in accordance with its agreements with the City 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of Roxas and the purposes of the defendant corporation without any Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
objection or opposition of any kind on the part of the plaintiffs for over twenty- I. Whether x x x in determining if there is a case for unlawful detainer, a
two long years. court should limit itself in interpreting a single phrase/allegation in the
That the defendant’s possession of the subject property is by virtue of a complaint; and,
contract of lease entered into by the defendant foundation with the City of II. Whether x x x there exists an unlawful detainer in this case.16
Roxas which is the true and lawful owner, the latter having acquired said Our Ruling
property by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale as early as February 19, 1981, The petition is bereft of merit.
long before the defendant foundation’s occupation of the property. In Alcos v.
IAC, 162 SCRA 823 (1988), Buyer’s immediate possession and occupation

Page 4 of 6
The allegations in petitioner’s Complaint the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the
constitute judicial admissions. prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally
Petitioners alleged in their Complaint before the MTCC, among others, lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the
that: (1) sometime in 1991, without their consent and authority, respondent _______________
took full control and possession of the subject property, developed the same 18 Federation of Free Farmers v. Court of Appeals, 194 Phil. 328, 401;
and used it for commercial purposes; and (2) they allowed the respondent for 107 SCRA 352, 427 (1981).
several years, to make use of the land without any contractual or legal basis. 19 Alfelor v. Halasan,  G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 451,
Petitioners thus conclude that respondent’s possession of subject property is 460.
only by tolerance. 20 Supra note 1 at p. 175. Emphasis supplied.
Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that: 21 335 Phil. 1107; 268 SCRA 640 (1997).
“Sec. 4. Judicial admissions.—An admission, verbal or written, made by 22 G.R. No. 108817, May 10, 1994, 232 SCRA 372.
a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require 426
proof. x x x” 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
“A judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
of a trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in
to dispense with some rules of practice necessary to be observed and such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's
complied with.”17 Correspondingly, “facts alleged in the complaint are cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in
deemed admis- possession.”23
_______________ “The words ‘by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth’ shall include
16 Rollo, p. 9. every situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully enter
17 FRANCISCO VICENTE J., THE REVISED RULES OF COURT IN THE upon real property and exclude another, who has had prior possession,
PHILIPPINES, EVIDENCE, Volume VII Part I, 1997 edition, p. 90 citing 2 Jones therefrom.”24 “The foundation of the action is really the forcible exclusion of
on Evidence, sec. 894; Anderson’s Dict.; Bouv. Dict.; 1 Green on Evidence, the original possessor by a person who has entered without right.” 25
Sec. 27. “The act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor
425 therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and this
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 425 is all that is necessary.” 26 The employment of force, in this case, can be
Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. deduced from petitioners’ allegation that respondent took full control and
sions of the plaintiff and binding upon him.” 18 “The allegations, statements or possession of the subject property without their consent and authority.
admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader.” 19 “ ‘Stealth,’ on the other hand, is defined as any secret, sly, or clandestine
In this case, petitioners judicially admitted that respondents took control act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within residence of
and possession of subject property without their consent and authority and another without permission,”27 while strategy connotes the employment of
that respondent’s use of the land was without any contractual or legal basis. machinations or artifices to gain possession of the subject property. 28 The CA
Nature of the action is determined by the found that based on the petitioners’ allegations in their complaint,
judicial admissions in the Complaint. “respondent’s entry on the land of the petitioners was by stealth
In Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo,20 citing Cañiza v. Court of x x x.”29 However, stealth as defined requires a clandestine character which
Appeals,21 this Court held that “what determines the nature of an action as is not availing in the instant case
well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the _______________
complaint and the character of the relief sought.” 23 Id., at pp. 382-383, citing 3 MANUEL V. MORAN, COMMENTS ON THE
This Court, in Sumulong v. Court of Appeals,22 differentiated the distinct RULES OF COURT 312 (1980 ed.). Emphasis supplied.
causes of action in forcible entry vis-à-vis unlawful detainer, to wit: 24 Mediran v. Villanueva, 37 Phil 752, 756 (1918).
“Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action 25 Id.
defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In forcible entry, one is 26 Id.
deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, 27 Sumulong v. Court of Appeals, supra note 22 at p. 384.
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully 28 Id.
withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to 29 Rollo, p. 23.
hold possession under any contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, 427

Page 5 of 6
 VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 427
Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc. Petitioners should have filed a Com-
as the entry of the respondent into the property appears to be with the plaint for Forcible Entry within the
knowledge of the petitioners as shown by petitioners’ allegation in their reglementary one-year period from
complaint that “[c]onsidering the personalities behind the defendant the time of dispossession.
foundation and considering further that it is plaintiff’s nephew, then the vice- Petitioners likewise alleged in their Complaint that respondent took
mayor, and now the Mayor of the City of Roxas Antonio A. del possession and occupancy of subject property in 1991. Considering that the
Rosario, although without any legal or contractual right, who transacted with action for forcible entry must be filed within one year from the time of
the foundation, plaintiffs did not interfere with the activities of the foundation dispossession,36 the action for forcible entry has already prescribed when
using their property.”30 To this Court’s mind, this allegation if true, also petitioners filed their Complaint in 2003. As a consequence, the Complaint
illustrates strategy. failed to state a valid cause of action against the respondent.
In fine, the MTCC properly dismissed the Complaint, and the RTC and
Taken in its entirety, the allegations the CA correctly affirmed said order of dismissal.
in the Complaint establish a cause WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 26, 2005
of action for forcible entry, and not and the Resolution dated November 15, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
for unlawful detainer. G.R. SP No. 87784 are AFFIRMED.
“In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or SO ORDERED.
building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De
stealth.”31 “[W]here the defendant’s possession of the property is illegal ab Castro and Perez, JJ., concur. 
initio,” the summary action for forcible entry (detentacion) is the remedy to _______________
recover possession.32 35 Muñoz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102693, September 23, 1992,
In their Complaint, petitioners maintained that the respondent took 214 SCRA 216, 224.
possession and control of the subject property without any contractual or 36 RULES OF COURT, Rule 70, Section 1.
legal basis.33 Assuming that these allegations are true, it hence follows that 429
respondent’s possession was illegal from the very beginning. Therefore, the VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 429
foundation of petitioners’ complaint is one for forcible entry—that is “the Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
forcible exclusion of the original possessor by a person who has entered Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
without right.”34 Thus, and as correctly found Notes.—Ejectment may be effected only through an action for forcible
_______________ entry or unlawful detainer. (De la Paz vs. Panis, 245 SCRA 242 [1995])
30 Id. Emphasis supplied. A party is entitled to a judgment in its favor in a forcible entry case where
31 Sumulong v. Court of Appeals, supra note 22 at p. 382. there is uncontested evidence that a certain person and the men he engaged
32 Javier v. Veridiano II, G.R. No. 48050, October 10, 1994, 237 SCRA entered the land by strategy and stealth or force. (Episcopal Diocese of
565, 572 citing Emilia v. Bado,  131 Phil. 711; 23 SCRA 183 (1968). Northern Philippines vs. District Engineer, Mountain Province Engineering
33 Rollo, p. 21 District, Department of Public Works and Highways (MPED-DPWH), 608
34 Wong v. Carpio,  G.R. No. 50264, October 21, 1991, 203 SCRA 118, SCRA 238 [2009])
124. ——o0o—— 
428 © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Del Rosario vs. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.
by the CA, there can be no tolerance as petitioners alleged that respondent’s
possession was illegal at the inception.35
Corollarily, since the deprivation of physical possession, as alleged in
petitioners’ Complaint and as earlier discussed, was attended by strategy
and force, this Court finds that the proper remedy for the petitioners was to
file a Complaint for Forcible Entry and not the instant suit for unlawful
detainer.

Page 6 of 6