Rodriguez v. Taiño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellees, Vicente Rodriguez and brothers, alleged ownership and possession of a parcel of rice land in Mauban, Tayabas, from which they were allegedly dispossessed by the defendant-appellant, Jose Taiño, in 1906. They claimed damages amounting to P300. Procedural History: The defendant denied the allegations, claiming he took possession as administrator for Epifania Rodriguez Sanchez. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas rendered a judgment on March 31, 1909, ordering the plaintiffs to recover possession of the land and for the defendant to pay costs. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, leading to the filing of a bill of exceptions. The Petition: The plaintiffs sought the restitution of the land from which they were allegedly deprived by the defendant and payment of damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the restitution of the land. Whether the action for recovery of possession is maintainable in the Court of First Instance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ordering the restitution of the land to the plaintiffs and imposing costs against the appellant. The Court held that the action for recovery of possession was proper and maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to restitution: The Court affirmed that the action for the recovery of possession, prosecuted by the plaintiffs against the defendant who usurped and holds the land against the will of the legitimate possessors, is maintainable under the law. Article 446 of the Civil Code provides that every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession, and must be restored thereto by the means established in the laws of procedure. The act of spoliation is a positive attempt against the rights of a private party and against public order and must be suppressed without regard to the title held by the injured party, to avoid disturbances in the community and prevent anyone from taking the administration of justice into his own hands. Therefore, whoever possesses a thing is entitled to ask for its restitution against the despoiler, even if the despoiler is the owner. On the maintainability of the action in the Court of First Instance: The Court reiterated the doctrine that even after the promulgation of the Civil Code, the accion publiciana subsists to obtain court protection of the right of possession. Consequently, the action prosecuted by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession unlawfully taken by the defendant is proper. The Court clarified that while the loss of possession dealt with in Article 460 of the Civil Code may only be recovered within one year and one day by means of the action for the recovery of possession prescribed by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it is a question of real property, its restitution may nevertheless be claimed in a Court of First Instance, even after one year and one day, by means of the proper plenary action for the recovery of possession, which is the old action known as publiciana. The Court also cited Ledesma vs. Marcos to establish that the provisions giving exclusive jurisdiction to justices of the peace for one year do not deprive Courts of First Instance of their jurisdiction in other cases for the recovery of possession of realty.
Main Doctrine
The action for the recovery of possession, known as 'accion publiciana', subsists to obtain court protection of the right of possession, even after the promulgation of the Civil Code. This action is maintainable in the Court of First Instance even after one year and one day, for the restitution of real property unlawfully taken, irrespective of the title of ownership, as spoliation must be suppressed to avoid disturbances in the community.