Sello ambiental ecológico:

160 | P a g e

CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 40

Republic

V

Luriz

FACTS

Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla, filed a complaint for ejectment against respondents, Marcelo Abiera and Maricris Abiera Paredes, with the Municipal Trial Court. The respondents alleged that they are the owners of the land as they are in continuous possession of relevant documents the petitioner do not have. The MTC dismissed the complaint summarily for lack of merit. The petitioner argued that he had sufficiently established his ownership of the subject properties and presented copies of Transfer Certificate of Title and Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Residential Building) with Waiver and Quitclaim of Ownership. Consequently, he asserted the right to recover possession thereof.

ISSUE

Whether or not the documents of Carbonilla is enough to prove ownership of the property. :

HELD

The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises; that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party’s title to the property is questionable.

:

15_{For this reason, an ejectment}

case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Key jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular ejectment case filed must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven.

161 | P a g e

Provost V

Court of Appeals FACTS

Respondents Victor and Fe Ramos are the owners of a parcel of land in Putingbalas, Tupsan Grande. Sometime in May 1992, the Provosts, the petitioners, constructed a fence separating the two lots. In 1994, the respondents demanded the return of the area of their lot that they believe the petitioners encroached on, but the latter refused. The respondents thus had a relocation survey, which showed that the fence was indeed on their land. The petitioners disagreed, arguing that the cadastral survey plan used had been disapproved as defective. The Ramos couple anchor their claim on the deed of donation and an old survey plan, while the Provosts base theirs on the deed of absolute sale and the corrected survey plan.

:

The MTC dismissed the respondents’ complaint and held that they failed to prove their ownership and possession of the disputed area. Upon appeal, the RTC affirmed the MTC decision, stating that the claim by the Ramoses over the property was based on a disapproved survey plan. In reversing the RTC decision, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the petitioners had no right to move the common boundary such that the area of the adjoining lot was reduced to 3,552 square meters.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Provosts encroached on the property of the Ramoses. :

HELD

Rules on Civil Procedure allow the RTC, which have the jurisdiction over complaints for recovery of ownership, to decide on cases brought on appeal from the MTC which, even without jurisdiction over the subject matter, may decide the case on its merits. In this case, the MTC of Mambajao should have dismissed the complaint outright for lack of jurisdiction but since it decided the case on its merits, the RTC rendered a decision based on the findings of the MTC.

162 | P a g e

CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 40

Encarnacion

V

Amigo FACTS:

Respondent Amigo allegedly entered and took posession of a portion of a property sometime in 1985 without the permission of the owner. In 1995, petitioner Encarnacion was the registered owner of the property by virtue of the waiver of rights executed by his mother-in-law. In 2001, a letter demanding the respondent to vacate the property was sent by the petitioner. The demand remained unheeded, which caused the petitioner to file a complaint for ejectment. The Municipal Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for review. Based on the allegations in this complaint. the Court of Appeals held that the proper action is accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer.

ISSUE

Whether or not the RTC has properly acquired jurisdiction of the case

:

HELD

While it is true that the demand letter was received by the respondent on February 12, 2001, thereby 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 true that petitioner became the owner of the lot in 1995 and has been since deprived possession of a portion thereof. Almost six years have elapsed from the date of the petitioner's dispossession in 1995 up to his filing of complaint for ejectment in 2001. 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 RTC.The respondent's actual entry on the land of the petitioner was in 1985 but it was only sixteen years after that the petitioner filed his ejectment case. The respondent should have filed an accion publiciana case which is under the jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the RTC should have not dismissed the case; it 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. Moreover, the RTC 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.

163 | P a g e

CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 41

APPEAL