Está en la página 1de 2

CASE NO. 39 ENCARNACION V.

AMIGO
FACTS
1. Petitioner Encarnacion is the registered owner of two lots in Isabela covered by
two TCTs.
The two lots originally formed part of a single lot owned by Rogelio Valiente.
Rogelio Valiente sold the lot to Nicasio Mallapitan.
Mallapitan later on sold the same to Victoriano Magpantay in 1985.
When Mallapitan died, his widow, executed an Affidavit of Waiver on April 11,
1995, waiving her right over the property in favor of her son-in-law, petitioner
Encarnacion.
Petitioner then caused the subdivision of the lot and the issuance of titles in
his name on July 18, 1996.
2. Respondent Nieves Amigo allegedly entered the premises and took possession of
a portion of the property sometime in 1985 without the permission of the then
owner, Victoriano Magpantay.
Said occupation continued even after petitioner became the owner of the
property.
3. Petitioner sent a letter to Amigo on Feb 1, 2001 to vacate the property.
Amigo refused, alleging that he has been in actual possession and occupation
of the property since 1968.
4. Petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment on March 2, 2001 before the MTC of
Isabela.
Rulings of the lower courts:

MTC Ruled in favor of petitioner Encarnacion. Ordered respondent to vacate the


property.

RTC Dismissed the case on the ground that MTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
Hence, it acquired no appellate jurisdiction.

CA Remanded the case back to the RTC for further proceedings.

ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the proper action in this case is accion
publiciana and not unlawful detainer as determined by the allegations in the complaint.
RULING
Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the
complaint. From the allegations in the complaint, it appears that petitioner became the
owner of the property on April 11, 1995, by virtue of the waiver executed by his mother-inlaw. However, he filed the complaint for ejectment only on March 2, 2001 after his Feb 1,
2001 letter demanding respondent to vacate remained unheeded.
While it is true that the demand letter was received by respondent on Feb 12, 2001,
thereby making the filing of the complaint for ejectment fall within the requisite of one year
from last demand for complaints for unlawful detainer, it is equally true that petitioner
became the owner of the property in 1995 and has been since that time deprived of

possession of a portion thereof. From the date of petitioners dispossession in 1995 up to his
filing of his complaint for ejectment in 2001, almost 6 years have elapsed.
The length of time petitioner was dispossessed of his property made his cause of action
beyond the ambit of accion interdical and effectively made it one for accion
publiciana which must be filed in the RTC.
PETITION IS DENIED. The Decision of the CA remanding the case to the RTC is AFFIRMED.

También podría gustarte