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.