University of the Philippines College of Law

MSI 2D

Topic Regional Trial Courts

Case No. G.R. No. 169793 September 15, 2006
Case Name Encarnacion v. Amigo
Ponente Ynares-Santiago, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Lot 2121 in Isabela was originally owned by Valiente who subsequently sold it to Mallapitan, who later sold it to Victoriano
Magpantay. Upon his death, his widow Anita Magpantay executed an Affidavit of Waiver in favor of her son-in law, Petitioner
Encarnacion. Encarnacion caused his lots to be divided in two and these titles were issued on July 1996.
 Respondent Amigo allegedly entered and took possession of the property without permission while it was still owned by the
late Victoriano Magpantay. His occupation continued until after titles were issued to Petitioner Encarnacion. Hence, a letter
demanding Amigo to vacate the property was sent by Encarnacion on February 1, 2001, and it was received by the respondent
on February 12, 2001.
 The demand remained unheeded so Encarnacion filed a complaint for ejectment with the MTC.
 MTC: in favor of Encarnacion. It ordered that Amigo vacate the property.
 Amigo appealed to the RTC.
 RTC: dismissed the case on the ground that MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. As such, it ruled that it acquires no appellate
jurisdiction over the case.
 Encarnacion then filed a petitioner for review under Rule 42 before the CA 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.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N the CA was correct in
holding that the proper action in
this case was accion publiciana
and not unlawful detainer
(accion interdictal)? – YES
Ratio
 The three kinds of actions for recovery of possession of real property are:
o 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;
o 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
o 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.
 The material element that determines the proper action to file for recovery of
possession of property in this case is the length of time of dispossession.
o Under the Rules of Court, the summary remedies of unlawful
detainer and forcible entry are available within one year from such
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. If dispossession
has not lasted for more than a year, an ejectment proceeding is
proper, and the MTC/inferior courts has jurisdiction.
o However, if dispossession lasts for more than one year, the proper
action to be filed is accion publiciana which should be brought
directly to the RTC.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI 2D

W/N the RTC should have taken
cognizance of the case – YES
 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 the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
some of the claims asserted therein. What determines the jurisdiction of the
court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in
the complaint. 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.
 In this case, Petitioner Encarnacion became owner as early as 1995 but he only
sent a demand letter & filed for an ejectment case in 2001. While it is true
that the filing of the ejectment case fell within the requisite of one year within
sending a demand letter, it is equally true that he has already been deprived
of property for about 6 years. The length of time of dispossession made his
cause of action beyond the ambit of accion interdictal and effectively made
it one for accion publiciana.
 The respondent should have filed an accion publiciana case which is under
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
 The RTC should have not dismissed the case; it should have taken cognizance
of the case.
o 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. In such a case, 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.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 30, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 73857 ordering the
remand of Civil Case No. Br. 20-1194 to the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, for further proceedings, is AFFIRMED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES
RULE 40, SECTION 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. — If an appeal is taken from an order of
the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be.
In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, 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 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.