This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-01-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We now resolve the basic substantial issue. In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession of the land or building and that he was deprived thereof by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.[12] It must be stressed, though, that he cannot succeed where it appears that, as between himself and the defendant, the latter had a possession antedating his own.[13] To ascertain this, it is proper to look at the situation as it existed before the first act of spoliation occurred.[14] Such determination in this case requires a review of factual evidence, generally proscribed in a petition like this.[15] Considering, however, the conflicting factual findings of the MTC and RTC on one hand, and the Court of Appeals on the other, this Court takes exception to the general rule in order to resolve the factual issues raised by the parties. | |||||
|
2003-01-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Where a dispute over possession arises between two persons, the person first having actual possession is the one who is entitled to maintain the action granted by law; otherwise, a mere usurper without any right whatever, might enter upon the property of another and, by allowing himself to be ordered off, could acquire the right to maintain the action of forcible entry and detainer, however momentary his intrusion might have been.[22] | |||||