BRUNO GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. DALMACIO ANAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Dalmacio Anns
filed on August 3, 1957 before the Justice of the Pence Court of Zablan, Mt. Province a complaint for forcible entry against
Bruno Garcia praying that the latter be ordered to deliver to the former the
possession of the land in litigation. Defendant, in his answer, averred that the
properly allegedly owned by the plaintiff is within the parcel of land handed
down to him by his father as his inheritance and that since then he has been in
possession thereof and has never been molested nor dispossessed by
anyone.

The justice of the peace
dismissed the case holding that the defendant is the one entitled to the
possession of the land. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Baguio reached practically the same conclusion. It dismissed
the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has failed to identify the land which
he claims to have been dispossessed by defendant.

The case went to the Court of
Appeals, but this time this Court found that the complaint is meritorious. It
ordered defendant to restore to plaintiff the possession of the land and to pay
him P500.00 as attorney’s fees. The case is now before us on a petition for
review.

The court a quo, after an
examination of the evidence, concluded that plaintiff has not been able to
identify the land which lie claims to have been dispossessed by defendant for,
according to the court, even his own witness Rosita Gayo gave as a description of the land sold by her father
one consisting of 10 hectares instead of only 4 which is the one allegedly sold
by her father to the plaintiff, while, on the other hand, the preponderance of
evidence shows that defendant is the owner of the land and h one entitled to its
possession. Consequently, on the s of this finding, the court dismissed the
complaint.

The Court of Appeals, however,
reached a different contusion. Thus, it found that the plaintiff is the
rightful, sole and absolute owner since time immemorial of the parcel of land
described in the complaint; that plaintiff bought 4 of the 10 hectares of the
land from one Pablo Galbo in 1945 which he occupied
and expanded by including the 6 hectares he acquired through a patent
application; and that in May, 1957, defendant entered the land, had the same
surveyed over his protest, fenced it and turned loose his carabao thereon. And considering that defendant did not deny
these facts but limited himself to proving his title to the land by identifying
the tax declarations covering the same, the Court of Appeals reached the
conclusion that plaintiff was in actual possession of the land of which he was
dispossessed by defendant by having it surveyed and
possessed.

We agree with the Court of
Appeals that in an action for ejectment the only issue
involved is one of possession de facto the purpose of which is merely to
protect the owner from any physical encroachment from without. The title of the
land or its ownership is not involved, for if a person is in actual possession
thereof he is entitled to be maintained and respected in it even against the
owner himself. The main thing to be proven is prior possession and if same is
lost through force, stealth or violence, it behooves the court to restore it
regardless of its title or ownership (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
Vol. 2, 1957 ed., p. 289). In this sense, we find incorrect the procedure
adopted by the court a quo wherein, to determine the right to possession,
it resorted to an analysis of the evidence regarding its title or ownership, and
when it found that the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership it dismissed
his complaint. Such finding is not necessary. What is important is to find out
who the actual possessor is and if his possession hart been disturbed. This the Court of Appeals did, which finding we cannot now
look into.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
affirmed.

Costs against
petitioner.

Bengzon, C. J., Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Regala,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.
P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.