Digest Author: Coco Navarro

ENCARNACION v AMIGO (2006)

vacate the premises. After refusal to vacate, Petitioner

Encarnacion filed a complaint for ejectment.
4. MTC ruled in favor of Petitioner but RTC dismissed the case
due to lack of jurisdiction of the MTC (hence it acquired no
appellate jurisdiction). Hence this petition.

Petitioner: Victoriano Encarnacion

Respondent: Nieves Amigo
Ponencia: Ynares-Santiago

ISSUES: Whether the CA erred in holding that the proper action in

this case was accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer (accion
interdictal)?

DOCTRINE: 1. The length of time of an owners dispossession

RULING + RATIO:
NO.

of property determines the proper action to be filed for the

recovery of possession of property.
2. If lower court tries a case on merits but without jurisdiction
over the subject matter, RTC may no longer dismiss the case
if it has original jurisdiction/if it is the proper court to try the
case. It shall decide the case based on evidence presented in
the lower court without prejudice to amended pleadings and
additional 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 to
Victoriano Magpantay. Upon his death, his widow Anita
Magpantayexecuted a waiver of right 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.
2. 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.
3. In February 2001, Petitioner Encarnacion, through
counsel, sent a demand letter for Respondent Amigo to

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. 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
DISPOSITION: Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals 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