Encarnacion v Amigo (2006)

GR 169793 ; 15 Sep 2006 ; J. Ynares-Santiago

Parties: P holder of TCT; R Possessor of a portion of
the parcel of land

1.

2.

Nature: Review of CA decision

Facts: The subject property (SP) involved in this case is a
parcel of land, located at Isabela, at 707 sqm. It was
originally owned by a certain Valiente, who sold it to
Magpantay in 1985.
During Magpantays ownership of said parcel of land,
respondent Nieves Amigo took possession of a portion of
the SP.
When Magpantay died, his widow executed an Affidavit of
Waiver waiving her rights to the SP to her son-in-law,
Petitioner Victoriano Encarnacion (P). In 1996, P caused
the subdivision of the SP into two parcels: Parcel1 (P1) at
100 sqm and P2 at 607sqm. TCTs were issued after this
subdivision in Ps name.
Despite such assignment to and subdivision by P,
however, R remained in possession of a portion of the SP.
In Feb 2001, P sent a demand letter to R to vacate the SP,
but R did not heed such demand. Hence, in March 2001, P
filed a COMPLAINT FOR EJECTMENT against R, also
praying for DAMAGES with INJUNCTION and Prayer for
issuance of a TRO against R AT THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES OF ISABELA (MTCC).
MTCC: ruled in favor of P-Encarnacion (owner)
RTC (on appeal by R): Dismissed the case, averring that
the MTCC has no Jurisdiction over the case, the proper
remedy being one for ACCION PUBLICIANA (where RTC
has Jurisdiction)
CA: affirmed RTC but REMANDED the case to the RTC
for proceedings.
P filed Pet. For Review before the SC.
Argument of P (owner) since his demand letter was
sent Feb 2001, and his action for ejectment was filed in
Mar 2001, there was only a lapse of 1 month, therefore his
action was one for EJECTMENT and NOT ACCION
PUBLICIANA.
Issue: WON the proper remedy for P is Accion Publiciana
and if the same should be filed before the RTC
Held: Yes. CA decision upheld.
Ratio: In this jurisdiction, the three kinds of actions for the
recovery of possession of real property are: (see ROC 70,
Sec. 1)

3.

Accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding which may be

either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer
(desahucio), which is a summary action for recovery of physical
possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more
than one year, and should be brought in the proper inferior
court;
Accion publiciana or the plenary action for the recovery of the
real right of possession, which should be brought in the proper
Regional Trial Court when the dispossession has lasted for
more than one year; and
3. Accion reinvindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion, which is
an action for the recovery of ownership which must be brought
in the proper Regional Trial Court.

Based on the foregoing distinctions, the material element

that determines the proper action to be filed for the
recovery of the possession of the property in this case is
the length of time of dispossession. This length of time of
dispossession FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
THE PROPER ACTION TO BE FILED is to be determined
by looking at the material allegations of the complaint.
The length of time that the petitioner was dispossessed of
his property made his cause of action beyond the ambit of
an accion interdictal and effectively made it one for accion
publiciana. To determine dispossession, the SC looked at
the time when P became the owner of the SP. According to
the SC, P took ownership of the SP AT THE TIME WHEN
THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER
EXECUTED THE AFFIDAVIT OF WAIVER IN Ps FAVOR,
which was in 1995. Hence, P was effectively dispossessed
of the property from 1995 to 2001, or for a period of 6
years. Therefore, his remedy is not one for EJECTMENT
but one for ACCION PUBLICIANA.
However, the RTC should have not dismissed the case.
Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court translates to the ff:
SECTION 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of
jurisdiction. If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court
dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court
may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and
the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on
the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the
case shall be remanded for further proceedings.
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction
over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not
dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the
case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the
admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest
of justice.

The RTC should have taken cognizance of the case. If the

case is tried on the merits by the Municipal Court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal
may no longer dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction
thereof. Moreover, the RTC shall no longer try the case on
the merits, but shall decide the case on the basis of the
evidence presented in the lower court, without prejudice to
the admission of the amended pleadings and additional
evidence in the interest of justice.