4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly dated February 4, 1994 in favor of [Patrick] and his sister, Lourdes M. Dennison, an American citizen. Copy of the deed is hereto attached[.] 5. Thereafter, [Patrick] took possession of the house and made improvements, using the same as his residence whenever he comes up to Baguio. 6. Lately[,] however, [Patrick] learned that [Federico] has been frequenting [Patrick's] house at #63 Scout Barrio, Baguio City without even bothering to seek permission from [Patrick]. 7. Subsequent thereto, without knowledge and consent of [Patrick], taking advantage of [Patrick's] absence, [Federico] entered and occupied the house at #63 Scout Barrio, Baguio City. 8. Upon his return from the United States in March of 2010, [Patrick] came to know of [Federico's] act, and as any brother would do, tried to settle the matter with [Federico]. 9. But instead of apologizing for his unlawful act, [Federico] had the arrogance of even threatening [Patrick] with bodily harm if he comes up to Baguio, an incident which was reported by [Patrick] to the Baguio Police.[21] (Emphases supplied) Clearly, the Complaint sufficiently stated the essential elements of an action for forcible entry. Patrick clearly alleged that upon adjudication of the property to him and Lourdes in 1994, he took possession thereof, made improvements therein, and used the same as his residence every time he goes to Baguio. Patrick also alleged that Federico entered and occupied the property without the former's knowledge and consent. Federico's entry and occupation as alleged, therefore, was effected clandestinely and consequently, his possession thereof is by stealth.[22] Notably, there was no question that the Complaint was filed within a year from Patrick's discovery of Federico's unlawful entry in the subject property. The question now is whether Patrick was able to prove these allegations of prior physical possession of the subject property and dispossession thereof by Federico through stealth. We likewise answer in the affirmative. The only question that courts must resolve in an ejectment case is who between the parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property in dispute. The main issue is possession de facto, independent of any claim of ownership or possession de jure.[23] Thus, courts should base their decision on who had prior physical possession of the premises under litigation.[24] As a rule, "possession" in forcible entry cases refers to nothing more than prior physical possession or possession de facto, not possession de jure or that arising from ownership. Title is not an issue. The Court has, however, consistently ruled that possession can be acquired not only by material or actual occupation, but also by the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66248 5/9