VICTORIANO M. ENCARNACION vs.

NIEVES AMIGO
G.R. No. 169793             September 15, 2006

DOCTRINE:

If petitioners are indeed the owners of the subject lot and were unlawfully deprived of their right of
possession, they should present their claim before the regional trial court in an accion publiciana or
an accion reivindicatoria, and not before the metropolitan trial court in a summary proceeding for
unlawful detainer or forcible entry. For even if one is the owner of the property, the possession thereof
cannot be taken from another who had been in physical or material possession of the same for more than
one year by resorting to a summary action for ejectment.

FACTS:

Petitioner Victoriano M. Encarnacion is the registered owner of 2 LOTS located at District 1, National
Hi-way, Cauayan, Isabela wherein he acquired by virtue of an affidavit of waiver executed by Anita N.
Magpantay on April 11, 1995 in favor of him (son-in-law), waiving her right over the property of the
decedent Victoriano Magpantay. These two lots originally form part of a single track of land owned by
Rogelio Valiente who sold the same to Nicasio Mallapitan and thereafter he sold to Victoriano
Magpantay on March 21, 1985.Thereafter, Encarnacion caused the subdivision of the land into two
lots and the issuance of titles in his name on July 18, 1996.

Respondent Nieves Amigo allegedly entered the premises and took possession of a portion of the property
sometime in 1985 without the permission of the then owner, Victoriano Magpantay. Said occupation by
respondent continued even after TCT’s were issue to petitioner in 1996.

On February 1, 2001 a demand letter was sent to the respondent to vacate the properties which was
received by him on February 12, 2001 but he still refused to vacate the subject properties hence petitioner
Victoriano M. Encarnacion filed a complaint for ejectment, damages with injunction and prayer for
restraining order with the MTC. Respondent claims that he has been in actual possession and occupation
of a portion of the subject land since 1968 and that the issuance of Free Patent and titles in the name of
petitioner was tainted with irregularities.

MTC: Ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and order defendant to vacate the properties and pay damages and
rentals.

RTC: Dismissed the case on the ground that MTC had no jurisdiction over the case and RTC did not
acquire appellate jurisdiction.

CA: Remanded the case to the RTC.

ISSUE:

a. Whether the case is one of Accion Publiciana and not Unlawful Detainer?

b. WON RTC have jurisdiction over the case?

RULING:
 a. The case that should have filed should be a case of Accion Publiciana.

There are three (3) kinds of actions for the recovery of possession of real property are:

1. 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;

2. 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

The remedy of unlawful detainer is granted to a person deprived of the possession of any land or building
by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. This should be filed within one (1) year after such
unlawful deprivation before the MTC. However, if the dispossession lasted for more than one year, the
proper action to be filed is an accion publiciana which should be brought to the proper Regional Trial
Court. Hence, 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.

From the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the petitioner became the owner of the property on
April 11, 1995 by virtue of the waiver of rights executed by his mother-in-law. He filed the complaint for
ejectment on March 2, 2001. From the date of the petitioner's dispossession in 1995 up to his filing of his
complaint for ejectment in 2001, almost 6 years have elapsed. 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. After the lapse of the one-year period, the
suit must be commenced in the Regional Trial Court via an accion publiciana which is a suit for recovery
of the right to possess. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of
realty independently of title.

However, the Supreme Court held that if petitioners are indeed the owners of the subject lot and were
unlawfully deprived of their right of possession, they should present their claim before the regional trial
court in an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, and not before the metropolitan trial court in a
summary proceeding for unlawful detainer or forcible entry. For even if one is the owner of the property,
the possession thereof cannot be taken from another who had been in physical or material possession of
the same for more than one year by resorting to a summary action for ejectment.

Therefore, the respondent's actual entry on the land of the petitioner was in 1985 (from the time it was
sold to Victorio Magpantay) but it was only on March 2, 2001 or sixteen years after, when petitioner filed
his ejectment case. The respondent should have filed an accion publiciana case which is under the
jurisdiction of the RTC.

b. Yes. The RTC should have not dismissed the case.

Therefore, 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.