3/1/2019 GR 156995: Manalang vs Bacani | case digests ph

GR 156995: Manalang
vs Bacani
Full Case Title: RUBEN MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG, CONCEPCION GONZALES AND LUIS
MANALANG, Petitioners, vs. BIENVENIDO AND MERCEDES BACANI, Respondents.

G.R. No.: G.R. No. 156995

Date: 12 January 2015

Ponente: Bersamin, J.

Facts: Petitioners were co-owners for lot in question and caused a relocation and verification survey which
showed that respondents had encroached on a portion of said lot. When the respondents refused to vacate the
encroached portion and to surrender peaceful possession thereof despite demands, the petitioners
commenced this action for unlawful detainer.

MTC dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and remanded
case on appeal. MTC ultimately dismissed case. Another appeal to RTC was made. RTC ordered the
petitioners to conduct a relocation survey to determine their allegation of encroachment, and also heard the
testimony of the surveyor. The RTC then reversed the MTC’s decision.

Issue (1) Can RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction conduct a relocation and verification survey of
lot in question? (2) Was an action for unlawful detainer proper?

Ruling: The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case, shall not conduct a rehearing or trial de
novo. In this connection, Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Courtclearly provides:

Sec. 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not conclusive in actions involving title or ownership.

xxxx

The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the
same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda
and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court. (7a)

Hence, the RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the conduct of the relocation and verification survey
“in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” and by hearing the testimony of the surveyor, for its doing so was
tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. The violation was accented by the fact that the RTC ultimately
decided the appeal based on the survey and the surveyor’s testimony instead of the record of the proceedings
had in the court of origin.

(2) CA correctly held that a boundary dispute must be resolved in the context of accion reivindicatoria, not an
ejectment case. The boundary dispute is not about possession, but encroachment, that is, whether the
property claimed by the defendant formed part of the plaintiff’s property. A boundary dispute cannot be
settled summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful
detainer and forcible entry. In unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds the possession of the
premises upon the expiration or termination of his right to hold such possession under any contract, express
https://casedigestsphdotnet.wordpress.com/gr-156995-manalang-vs-bacani/ 1/2
3/1/2019 GR 156995: Manalang vs Bacani | case digests ph

or implied. The defendant’s possession was lawful at the beginning, becoming unlawful only because of the
expiration or termination of his right of possession. In forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal
from the very beginning, and the issue centers on which between the plaintiff and the defendant had the prior
possession de facto.

The MTC dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was correct. It
is fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the complaint
determine the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the action. To be clear, unlawful
detainer is an action filed by 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.

However, the allegations of the petitioners’ complaint did not show that they had permitted or tolerated the
occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how the respondents’ entry had been
effected, or how and when the dispossession by the respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged
was the respondents’ “illegal use and occupation” of the property. As such, the action was not unlawful
detainer.

https://casedigestsphdotnet.wordpress.com/gr-156995-manalang-vs-bacani/ 2/2