Encarnacion vs. Amigo

The proper action for recovery of possession of real property is determined by the length of time of dispossession; where dispossession has lasted more than one year, the action is accion publiciana, which must be brought in the Regional Trial Court, not unlawful detainer in the Municipal Trial Court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Petitioner Victoriano M. Encarnacion is the registered owner of two lots in Cauayan, Isabela, which originally formed part of a single parcel of land owned by Rogelio Valiente. The property passed through successive sales, and after the death of Victoriano Magpantay, his widow executed an Affidavit of Waiver in favor of petitioner, who then caused the subdivision of the land and the issuance of titles in his name. Respondent Nieves Amigo allegedly entered the premises and took possession of a portion of the property sometime in 1985 without permission, and continued occupying it even after titles were issued to petitioner.

Petitioner Victoriano M. Encarnacion is the registered owner of Lot No. 2121-B-1, consisting of 100 square meters and covered by TCT No. T-256650, and Lot No. 2121-B-2, consisting of 607 square meters with TCT No. T-256651, located at District 1, National Highway, Cauayan, Isabela. These two lots originally formed part of Lot No. 2121, a single 707 square meter tract of land owned by Rogelio Valiente, who sold the same to Nicasio Mallapitan on January 18, 1982. On March 21, 1985, Mallapitan sold the land to Victoriano Magpantay. After the death of the latter in 1992, his widow, Anita N. Magpantay, executed an Affidavit of Waiver on April 11, 1995, waiving her right over the property in favor of her son-in-law, herein petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner 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 Nos. T-256650 and T-256651 were issued to petitioner. Consequently, petitioner, through his lawyer, sent a letter dated February 1, 2001 demanding that respondent vacate the subject property. As evidenced by the registry return receipt, the demand letter was delivered by registered mail to respondent on February 12, 2001. Notwithstanding receipt of the demand letter, respondent still refused to vacate the subject property.

Thereafter, on March 2, 2001, petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment, damages with injunction and prayer for restraining order with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Isabela, docketed as CV-01-030. In his Answer, respondent alleged that he had 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.

On October 24, 2001, the MTCC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, ordering respondent to vacate the portion of the parcels of land described in TCT Nos. T-256650 and T-256651, to pay P5,000 as attorney's fees, and to pay rentals equivalent to P500 per month from February 2001 until the portion of the land occupied is surrendered to the plaintiff, with costs against the defendant. On appeal, the RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the case, and thus the RTC acquired no appellate jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, however, remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings, holding that the proper action was accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer.

• Proper Action is Unlawful Detainer: Petitioner argued that 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. Petitioner maintained that the demand letter was received by respondent on February 12, 2001, making the filing of the complaint for ejectment on March 2, 2001 fall within the requisite one year from last demand for complaints for unlawful detainer.

• Long-standing Possession: Respondent alleged in his Answer that he had 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.

• Jurisdiction and Proper Action: 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.

• Jurisdiction and Proper Action: No. The proper action is accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, and since petitioner was dispossessed of the property for almost six years before filing the ejectment complaint, the action was beyond the ambit of accion interdictal and effectively one for accion publiciana, which must be brought in the Regional Trial Court.

• Jurisdiction and Proper Action: The Court identified the three kinds of actions for the recovery of possession of real property: (1) accion interdictal, which includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer, a summary action for recovery of physical possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, brought in the inferior court; (2) accion publiciana, the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession, brought in the RTC when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year; and (3) accion reinvindicatoria, the action for the recovery of ownership, brought in the RTC. The material element that determines the proper action is the length of time of dispossession.

The Court applied the well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. What determines jurisdiction is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint, and the averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. On its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.

From the allegations in the complaint, 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 after his February 1, 2001 letter to respondent demanding that the latter vacate the premises remained unheeded. While it is true that the demand letter was received by respondent on February 12, 2001, making the filing of the complaint for ejectment fall within the requisite one year from last demand for complaints for unlawful detainer, it is also equally true that petitioner became the owner of the subject lot in 1995 and has been since that time deprived of possession of a portion thereof. From the date of 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 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 RTC via an accion publiciana, which is a suit for recovery of the right to possess, an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title.

The Court cited prior jurisprudence holding that if the owner of the land knew that another person was occupying his property way back in 1977 but only filed the complaint for ejectment in 1995, the proper action would be one for accion publiciana and not one under the summary procedure on ejectment. Even if one is the owner of the property, the possession thereof cannot be wrested 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.

The Court further held that the RTC should not have dismissed the case. Under Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, if the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall 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.

• Accion Interdictal, Accion Publiciana, and Accion Reinvindicatoria — The three kinds of actions for the recovery of possession of real property are: (1) accion interdictal, or ejectment proceeding (forcible entry or unlawful detainer), a summary action for recovery of physical possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, brought in the proper inferior court; (2) accion publiciana, the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession, brought in the RTC when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year; and (3) accion reinvindicatoria, the action for the recovery of ownership, brought in the RTC. The material element that determines the proper action is the length of time of dispossession.

• Jurisdiction Determined by Allegations of the Complaint — Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. What determines jurisdiction is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint, and the averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. On its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.

• Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court — If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall 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.

• "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 passage identifies the controlling criterion for determining whether the proper action is ejectment or accion publiciana, which is central to the Court's ruling.

• "Well settled is the rule that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein." — This passage states the canonical rule on how jurisdiction is determined, which the Court applied to conclude that the action was accion publiciana.

• "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." — This passage articulates the Court's application of the one-year rule to the facts, forming the ratio decidendi of the case.

• "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." — This passage quotes Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which the Court applied to hold that the RTC should have taken cognizance of the case instead of dismissing it.

• Herrera vs. Bollos, 424 Phil. 851, 856 (2002) — Cited as authority for the rule that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing.

• Lopez vs. David, Jr., G.R. No. 152145, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 535, 540 — Cited for the proposition that on its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony, and that accion publiciana refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.

• Go, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142276, August 14, 2001, 362 SCRA 755, 769 — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that even if one is the owner of the property, the possession thereof cannot be wrested 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.

• Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court — Provides the remedies of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which are granted to a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied. These remedies afford the person deprived of possession to file at any time within one year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court.

• Section 8, Rule 40, Rules of Court — Provides that if the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall 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. The Court applied this provision to hold that the RTC should have taken cognizance of the case instead of dismissing it.

Panganiban, C.J., Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Chico-Nazario, J.J., concurred.