Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals

Summary

Property owners filed forcible entry case against occupants of their titled land. MTCC ruled in their favor but RTC and CA dismissed for lack of prior physical possession. Supreme Court dismissed petition using wrong procedural remedy (certiorari instead of appeal) and affirmed that forcible entry requires prior physical possession de facto, not just ownership rights. Mere ownership does not establish prior physical possession required for ejectment cases. The Court distinguished possession de facto from possession de jure, emphasizing that only actual physical possession, not title, is at issue in forcible entry. Since petitioners failed to prove prior physical possession and more than one year had elapsed, proper remedy was accion publiciana for recovery of possession based on better right to possess.