Encarnacion v. Amigo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Victoriano M. Encarnacion is the registered owner of two lots, totaling 707 square meters, which he acquired through a waiver of rights from his mother-in-law in 1995. These lots were originally part of a larger parcel sold by Rogelio Valiente to Nicasio Mallapitan in 1982, and subsequently to Victoriano Magpantay. Respondent Nieves Amigo allegedly entered and occupied a portion of the property in 1985 without the permission of the then-owner, Victoriano Magpantay, and continued this occupation even after new titles were issued to the petitioner. Procedural History: Following the respondent's refusal to vacate the premises after receiving a demand letter on February 12, 2001, the petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment, damages, and injunction with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Isabela on March 2, 2001. The MTCC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondent to vacate, pay attorney's fees, and monthly rentals. Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case, finding that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction and consequently, the RTC acquired no appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising the sole issue of whether the CA erred in holding that the proper action should have been accion publiciana (a plenary action for recovery of possession) rather than unlawful detainer, as determined by the allegations in the complaint. The petitioner argues that his complaint was for unlawful detainer, a summary ejectment proceeding. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, finding that the dispossession had lasted for more than one year (from 1995 to 2001), thus making accion publiciana the appropriate remedy, and that the case should be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the proper action in this case is accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer as determined by the allegations in the complaint filed by petitioner. Whether the Regional Trial Court should have dismissed the case on appeal despite having original jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the remand of the case to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the action (accion publiciana vs. unlawful detainer): The Court reiterated the distinctions between accion interdictal (ejectment, forcible entry, unlawful detainer), accion publiciana (plenary action for recovery of possession), and accion reinvindicatoria (recovery of ownership). The material element determining the proper action is the length of dispossession. Unlawful detainer is a summary action for dispossession not lasting more than one year, filed in the inferior court. Accion publiciana is for dispossession lasting more than one year and is filed in the Regional Trial Court. In this case, petitioner became owner in 1995 and filed the ejectment complaint on March 2, 2001. The dispossession thus lasted for almost six years, making the cause of action fall beyond the one-year period for accion interdictal, thus qualifying as accion publiciana. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint at the time of filing, and the averments and character of the relief sought are controlling. On the RTC's dismissal of the case on appeal: The Court held that the RTC erred in dismissing the case. Citing Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, the Court stated that if a case is tried on the merits by a lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof. Instead, the RTC should decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented in the lower court, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice. Therefore, the CA correctly ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The nature of the action for the recovery of possession of real property is determined by the length of time of dispossession. If dispossession has lasted for more than one year, the proper action is accion publiciana, cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. If the Municipal Court tries a case without jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court on appeal should not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction, but should decide it on the merits based on the evidence presented in the lower court.