De la Paz v.

Panis, 245 SCRA 242

Facts:

This petition for certiorari and mandamus began in 1972 as a complaint for recovery of
possession filed by the petitioners in the then Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch III,
Olongapo City. Subject property is located at Subic, Zambales with an area of 7,531 sqm.

The petitioners alleged in their complaint that sometime in 1970 or 1971 the private
respondents illegally entered portions of the said property, established possession thereof,
and introduced illegal improvements.

Private respondents admitted that they indeed entered into the said property, but averred
that they did so in the honest belief that it was part of the public domain; that they
introduced the improvements without objection from any party; and that they have been
in peaceful, open, and uninterrupted material possession thereof for more than ten years.

During the pre-trial conference, private respondents did not deny petitioners' title to the
subject property, in effect admitting such fact. The parties then limited the questions to be
resolved during the trial to the following issues: (a) the identity and extent of the land
claimed by the petitioners; (b) whether or not the area respectively occupied by
defendants are within the limits of the said land; and (c) whether or not the parties are
entitled to damages.

Private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
in this Court as respondent judge disregarded the aforementioned questions during trial.
The Court then resolved that the only issue between parties is whether or not the land
occupied by private respondents is included in the TCT and thereafter approved a
compromised agreement to conduct a relocation survey, the result of which the
respondent judge and private respondents should comply.

Geodetic Engineer report confirmed that private respondents were occupying portions of
the titled land.

However, respondent judge dismissed the complaint and counterclaims of the both
parties claiming that while complaint was a recovery of possession, it was in reality one for
ejectment or illegal detainer.

Petitioners then filed this case praying for the nullification of the decision and compelling
respondent judge to issue a writ execution enforcing the compromised agreement.

ISSUES:
1. WON the case is that of a plenary action for recovery of possession.
a. WON respondent judge has jurisdiction over the case.

RULING:

Yes, the case is a plenary action for recovery of possession. Hence, within the jurisdiction of
the respondent judge.

Respondent judge dismissed the action on the assumption that it is one for ejectment
cognizable by the MTC. Such supposition is erroneous.
Ejectment may be effected only through an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
Forcible entry is a summary action to recover material or physical possession of real
property when the person who originally held it was deprived of possession by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. An action for unlawful detainer may be filed when
possession by "a landlord, 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. Both actions may be filed with the municipal
courts within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.

Forcible entry was ruled out as there is no allegation in the complaint that petitioners were
denied possession of the land in question. Neither is the action one for unlawful detainer as
there is no lease contract between the parties, and the demand to vacate made upon
the private respondents did not make them tenants of the petitioners.

In order to gain possession of the land occupied by the private respondents, the proper
remedy adopted by the petitioners was the plenary action of recovery of possession
before the then Court of First Instance. Respondent judge, therefore, had jurisdiction over
the case and should not have dismissed it on the ground of lack thereof.

Respondent judge should have stuck to the aforesaid three issues defined by the parties
during pre-trial and considered the result of the land survey.

In addition, private respondents likewise argue in their comment and memorandum that
since the petitioners "had not yet entered the land in question (at the time of filing of the
complaint), they had not lost any possession, and the civil case they filed for recovery of
possession was wrong as no possession had been lost by them." This argument is untenable.
It amounts to recognition by the private respondents of petitioners' right to possess the land
in question and confirms the absence of any past or present tenancy relationship between
the parties.

Additional:

The three kinds of actions for the recovery of possession of real property are:

1. 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;
Prescription - within one year from date of actual entry or from the date of last demand to
vacate

2. Accion publiciana or the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession,
which should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the dispossession has
lasted for more than one year; and
Prescription - ten years

3. Accion reinvindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion, which is an action for the recovery

of ownership which must be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court.
Prescription - ten years