“These happen in the Philippines where houses may be constructed beside each other without respecting boundary lines.”
In a country like the Philippines where houses may be constructed beside each other without respecting boundary lines, we see constructions on top or abutting the firewall. These constructions may cause misunderstandings between neighbors that may lead to court intervention.
In the case of Barbers v. Chua, “Rolando Chua [Chua] filed a complaint for ejectment of extended structures that partly occupied the portion of [his] firewall…” “He alleged that Diana Barber (Barber), his neighbor, built a portion of the second floor of her house on top of his firewall” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
“Barber [and the other defendants] … filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and Barber’s person.” “They [also] claimed that the complaint did not raise the issue of material or physical possession of a property but the removal of certain structures that encroached upon [Chua’s] property.”
According to them, “[t]he complaint referred to encroachment, not of a land or building, but of a firewall, which they claim cannot be a subject of an ejectment case. As such, the case is one for specific performance, which is within the RTC’s jurisdiction.”
“In an Order dated 04 August 2009, the MTC dismissed [Chua’s] complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the complaint failed to allege stealth or tolerance, and that [Chua’s] prayer seeking removal of [Barber’s] permanent structures on top of his firewall falls short of what is required in an ejectment complaint” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) “reversed the assailed Order and remanded the case to the MTC. It found that [Chua’s] complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for forcible entry. Further, the RTC ruled that a firewall can be the subject of an ejectment case since it is an immovable property under Article 415 of the Civil Code” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
On further appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. “It ruled that [Barber’s and the other defendants’] act of taking full control of [Chua’s] firewall by constructing part of Barber’s second floor thereon without [Chua’s] consent constitutes unlawful dispossession of his property” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
The Supreme Court in affirming the decisions of the RTC and CA found “that [Chua’s] complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for forcible entry. [Chua] claimed that he is the owner of a house and lot with a firewall next to Barber’s property” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
In the same complaint examined by the Supreme Court, Chua “alleged that in building the second floor of Barber’s house, hollow blocks and iron grills were placed on top [of] his firewall and the dowels thereof removed without his consent.”
The Supreme Court held that “from the allegations of [Chua’s] complaint, it is clear that [Chua] merely allowed [Barber’s] construction workers to use the firewall so that they can properly lay the foundation for Barber’s second floor. He never consented to, and was surprised by the intrusion or extension of Barber’s property on top of his firewall” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
Further, “[t]hese allegations clearly qualify as dispossession by stealth, which is defined as any secret, sly, or clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into, or to remain within residence of another without permission.”
“That [Chua’s] complaint did not refer to dispossession of a parcel of land or a building does not mean that the remedy of ejectment is unavailable. In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation, the Court upheld the remedy of ejectment for dispossession of the subterranean portion of a titled property, noting that rights over lands are indivisible.”
“The owner of a parcel of land has rights not only to the land’s surface, but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height. By parity of reasoning, an aggrieved owner/possessor of a property can properly resort to a case for ejectment in order to remove structures affecting his right to possess the entirety of his property, including his firewall” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
The findings of the Supreme Court can be capsulized as such: “A lawful owner has the right to fully enjoy possession over his entire property, not only over the land’s surface but also over the structures built thereon, including everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height” (G.R. No. 205630, January 12, 2021).
