Você está na página 1de 2

VICTORIANO M. ENCARNACION, petitioner, vs. NIEVES AMIGO, respondent.

(2006)

Doctrine: If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on
the merits, the RTC may affirm or reverse it. In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case
on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be
remanded for further proceedings. 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.

Facts: Petitioner Encarnacion was the registered owner of the property on April 11,
1995 by virtue of the waiver of rights executed by his mother-in-law. Respondent
Amigo allegedly entered the premises and took posession of a portion of property
sometime in 1985 without the permission of the then owner. Hence, a letter
demanding the respondent to vacate the property was sent by the petitioner on
February 1, 2001, and it was received by the respondent on February 12, 2001. The
demand remained unheeded hence the petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment.
The Municipal Trial Court rendered decision in favor of the petitioner. On appeal,
Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on the ground that as the MTC had no
jurisdiction over the case. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petitioner for review under
Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals which remanded the case to the RTC for further
proceedings. CA held that the proper action is accion publiciana and not unlawful
detainer based on the allegations in the complaint filed by the petitioner.

Issues: WON the case is accion publiciana? WON the RTC should have taken
cognizance of the case? [Yes, it is a case of accion publiciana. RTC acquired
jurisdiction.]

Held/Ratio: 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 (e.g. MTC). On the other hand, 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 RTC.

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
equally true that petitioner became the owner of the lot in 1995 and has been since
that time deprived possession of a portion thereof. Almost 6 years have elapsed
from the date of the petitioner's dispossession in 1995 up to his filing of his
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 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. However, the RTC should have not dismissed the case; it
should have taken cognizance of the case. According to Section 8, Rule 40 of ROC, 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.

Você também pode gostar