In the case of Javier vs. Veridiano this Court held that the doctrine in Emilia v. Bado, 28 decided more than twenty-five years ago, is still good law. It preserved the age-old remedies available under existing laws and jurisprudence to recover possession of real property, namely: (1) accion interdictal, which is the summary action for either forcible entry or detentacion, where the defendants possession of the property is illegal ab initio; or for unlawful detainer or desahucio, where the defendants possession was originally lawful but ceased to be must be so by the expiration of his right to possess, both of which must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of forcible entry; and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer, in the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan court; (2) accion publiciana which is a plenary action for recovery of the right to possess and which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year; and, (3) accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion which seeks the recovery of ownership and includes the jus possidendi brought in the proper regional trial court. Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is thus an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title. In Banayos vs. Susana Realty, Inc., this Court held that: We have consistently held that a complaint for forcible entry, as distinguished from that of unlawful detainer, in order to vest jurisdiction upon the inferior court, must allege plaintiffs prior physical possession of the property, as well as the fact that he was deprived of such possession by any of the means provided in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, namely: force, intimidation, threats, strategy and stealth, for if the dispossession did not take place by any of these means, the courts of first instance, not the municipal courts, have jurisdiction. xxx xxx xxx The aforesaid Rule 70 does not, however, cover all of the cases of dispossession of lands. Thus, whenever the owner is dispossessed by any other means than those mentioned he may maintain his action in the Court of First Instance, and it is not necessary for him to wait until the expiration of twelve months before commencing an action to be repossessed or declared to be owner of the land. Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property illegally detained, together with rents due and damages, even though one (1) year has not expired from the beginning of such illegal detention, provided the question of ownership of such property is also involved. In other words, if the party illegally dispossessed desires to raise the question of illegal dispossession as well as that of the ownership over the property he may commence such action in the Court of First Instance immediately or at any time after such illegal dispossession. If he decides to raise the question of illegal dispossession only, and the action is filed more than one (1) year after such deprivation or withholding of possession, then the Court of First Instance will have original jurisdiction over the case. The former is an accion de reivindicacion which seeks the recovery of ownership as well as possession, while the latter refers to an accion publiciana, which is the recovery of the right to possess and is a plenary action in an ordinary proceeding in the Court of First Instance.
Posted on: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:47:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015