8/10/2019 Encarnacion v Amigo Digest

1/2

Digest Author: Coco Navarro

ENCARNACION v AMIGO (2006)Petitioner:Victoriano EncarnacionRespondent: Nieves AmigoPonencia: Ynares-Santiago

DOCTRINE: 1. The length of time of an owners dispossessionof property determines the proper action to be filed for therecovery of possession of property.

2. If lower court tries a case on merits but without jurisdictionover the subject matter, RTC may no longer dismiss the case

if it has original jurisdiction/if it is the proper court to try thecase. It shall decide the case based on evidence presented inthe lower court without prejudice to amended pleadings andadditional evidence in the interest of justice.

FACTS:1. Lot 2121 in Isabela was originally owned by Valiente who

subsequently sold it to Mallapitan, who later sold it toVictoriano Magpantay. Upon his death, his widow AnitaMagpantayexecuted a waiver of right in favor of her son-inlaw, Petitioner Encarnacion. Encarnacion caused his lotsto be divided in two and these titles were issued on July1996.

2. Respondent Amigo allegedly entered and took possessionof the property without permission while it was still owned bythe late Victoriano Magpantay. His occupation continueduntil after titles were issued to Petitioner Encarnacion.

3. In February 2001, Petitioner Encarnacion, throughcounsel, sent a demand letter for Respondent Amigoto

vacate the premises. After refusal to vacate, PetitionerEncarnacion filed a complaint for ejectment.

4. MTC ruled in favor of Petitioner but RTC dismissed the casedue to lack of jurisdiction of the MTC (hence it acquired no

appellate jurisdiction). Hence this petition.

ISSUES: Whether the CA erred in holding that the proper action inthis case was accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer (accioninterdictal)?

RULING + RATIO:NO.

The material element that determines the proper action to file forrecovery of possession of property in this case is the length of timeof dispossession. Under the Rules of Court, the summary remedies

of unlawful detainer and forcible entry are available within one yearfrom such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. Ifdispossession has not lasted for more than a year, an ejectmentproceeding is proper and the MTC/inferior courts has jurisdiction.However, if dispossession lasts for more than one year, theproper action to be filed is accion public ianawhich should bebrought directly to the RTC.

In this case, Petitioner Encarnacion became owner as early as 1995but he only sent a demand letter & filed for an ejectment case in2001. While it is true that the filing of the ejectment case fell withinthe requisite of one year within sending a demand letter, it is equallytrue that he has already been deprived of property for about 6 years.The length of time of dispossession made his cause of action beyondthe ambit of accion interdictaland effectively made it one for accion

publiciana.

However, the RTC should have not dismissed the case.[Rule 40 of the Rules of Court provides]SECTION 8.Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of

jurisdiction.If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower courtdismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional TrialCourt may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of

8/10/2019 Encarnacion v Amigo Digest

2/2

affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction overthe subject matter, theRegional Trial Court, if it has jurisdictionthereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case wasoriginally filed with it.

In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for furtherproceedings.

DISPOSITION:Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court ofAppeals ordering the remand of Civil Case No. Br. 20-1194 to theRegional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, for furtherproceedings, is AFFIRMED