Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Ramirez, Maria Hannah Kristen P.

JD-2C
PROPERTY

A CASE INVOLVING “ACCION REIVINDICATORIA”

G.R. No. 156995


Date: 12 January 2015

RUBEN MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG, CONCEPCION GONZALES AND LUIS MANALANG,


Petitioners, vs. BIENVENIDO AND MERCEDES BACANI, Respondents.

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) Whether or not the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction can conduct a
relocation and verification survey of lot in question;
(2) Whether or not the 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 Court clearly provides:
Sec. 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not conclusive in actions involving title
or ownership.
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
Ramirez, Maria Hannah Kristen P.
JD-2C
PROPERTY

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 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.

Вам также может понравиться