Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53061:gr-184225-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:04:18+00:00

Document:
SPOUSES ROGELIO F. LOPEZ AND TEOTIMA G. LOPEZ, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES SAMUEL R. ESPINOSA AND ANGELITA S. ESPINOSA, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition1 for review on certiorari is the March 24, 2008 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00113 finding petitioners, Spouses Rogelio F. Lopez and Teotima G. Lopez, liable for forcible entry and damages as well as the August 7, 2008 Resolution3 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Respondents, Spouses Samuel R. Espinosa and Angelita S. Espinosa, owned a house located at Barangay Washington, Surigao City. Constructed in 1983, the house was situated at the back of petitioners' residence and stood over a portion of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-123324, which was issued under the name of petitioners on June 28, 1996.
Meanwhile, the instant case stemmed from a complaint7 for Forcible Entry with Damages filed by respondents against petitioners on September 30, 2002. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-5950 before Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Surigao City.
Respondents alleged that on May 10, 2002, petitioners took advantage of their absence and demolished their house by means of stealth and strategy. Aided by hired personnel, petitioners removed and destroyed respondents' house and enclosed the property with a concrete fence.
3. Ordering defendants [petitioners] to further pay litigation expenses and the costs, and the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 17 August 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Tenth (10th) Judicial Region, Branch No. 29 of Surigao City in Civil Case No. 6229 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Judgment dated 05 February 2004 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch No. 2 of Surigao City in Civil Case No. 02-5950 for Forcible Entry with Damages is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
NOBODY WAS LEFT STAYING IN THE NIPA HOUSE FOR YEARS AND THE WATER AND ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS IN THE NIPA HOUSE WERE ALREADY CUT OFF AS EARLY AS 1999.
Petitioners argue that the disconnection of water and electric supply in respondents' house is proof of their intention to abandon the house, especially because respondents are not the owners of the land on which the house stood. Petitioners also allege that, even assuming arguendo that the Municipal Trial Court correctly decided on the issue of possession, the award of Php85,200.00 representing the value of improvements and attorney's fees is not supported by evidence.
On the other hand, respondents claim that they did not abandon their house, and that the abandonment of a right, claim or property must be clear, absolute, and irrevocable. On the award of Php85,200.00, respondents aver that the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.
In Dy v. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc.,19 the Court held that there is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. The basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession and that he was deprived thereof.
In the instant case, respondents' house was constructed in 1983 and they had prior physical possession until they were deprived thereof by petitioners. To substantiate their claims, respondents submitted the affidavit, dated September 20, 2002,20 of Carlos C. Menil and Lolito S. Bito, who witnessed the demolition of respondents' house during the latter's absence. Mr. Menil and Mr. Bito attested that they saw petitioner Rogelio personally supervising the demolition of respondents' house, and that he erected a concrete fence enclosing the area where the house formerly stood. Petitioners failed to refute the foregoing allegations except with bare denials.
The Court of Appeals correctly held that respondents did not abandon their house. Abandonment requires (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. The intention to abandon implies a departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned.23 There is none in this case.
It bears stressing that the instant case was preceded by the filing of actions for recovery of possession and malicious mischief before the Office of the Punong Barangay. Likewise, upon discovery of petitioners' acts of intrusion, respondents immediately filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities. The Certification to File Action dated August 26, 2002 shows that no settlement or conciliation was reached.25 It is clear from the foregoing that respondents have not been remiss in asserting their rights and that petitioners' claims over the subject property have not gone unchallenged.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The March 24, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00113-MIN finding petitioners liable for forcible entry is AFFIRMED.
2 Id. at 42-51. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Elihu A. YbaÃ±ez.
12 Id. at 116-118. Penned by Judge Victor A. Canoy.
14 Id. at 119-127. Penned by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan.
16 CA rollo, pp. 3-15.
19 G.R. No. 171842, July 22, 2009.
21 Perez v. Falcatan, G.R. No. 139536, September 26, 2005, 471 SCRA 21, 31.
23 Dela Cruz v. Quiazon, G.R. No. 171961, November 28, 2008.
25 Id. at p. 76.
26 Hermogenes v. Osco, G.R. No. 141505, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 301, 310.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.