Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

Encarnacion Vs Amigo Facts

The petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against the respondent in municipal trial court after the respondent took possession of part of petitioner's property in 1985 without permission and ignored a 2001 demand to vacate. The municipal court ruled for the petitioner but the regional trial court dismissed, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals said the proper action was one to recover possession (accion publiciana) which falls under regional trial court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the municipal court lacked jurisdiction given the length of dispossession, the regional trial court should not have dismissed but should have heard the case on merits based on evidence from lower court.

Uploaded by

Benedick Ledesma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views2 pages

Encarnacion Vs Amigo Facts

The petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against the respondent in municipal trial court after the respondent took possession of part of petitioner's property in 1985 without permission and ignored a 2001 demand to vacate. The municipal court ruled for the petitioner but the regional trial court dismissed, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals said the proper action was one to recover possession (accion publiciana) which falls under regional trial court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the municipal court lacked jurisdiction given the length of dispossession, the regional trial court should not have dismissed but should have heard the case on merits based on evidence from lower court.

Uploaded by

Benedick Ledesma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ENCARNACION vs AMIGO

===================================================

FACTS:

Respondent Amigo allegedly entered and took posession of a portion of a


property sometime in 1985 without the permission of the owner. In 1995,
petitioner Encarnacion was the registered owner of the property by virtue
of the waiver of rights executed by his mother-in-law. In 2001, a letter
demanding the respondent to vacate the property was sent by the petitioner.
The demand remained unheeded, which caused the petitioner to file a
complaint for ejectment. The Municipal Trial Court rendered a decision in
favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the
case on the grounds that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for review. Based on the
allegations in this complaint. the Court of Appeals held that the proper
action is accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has properly acquired jurisdiction of the case

HELD:
While it is true that the demand letter was received by the respondent on
February 12, 2001, thereby making the filing of the complaint for ejectment
fall within the requisite one year from last demand for complaints for
unlawful detainer, it is also true that petitioner became the owner of the lot
in 1995 and has been since deprived possession of a portion thereof. Almost
six years have elapsed from the date of the petitioner's dispossession in
1995 up to his filing of complaint for ejectment in 2001. The length of time
that the petitioner was dispossessed of his property made his cause of action
beyond the ambit of an accion interdictal and effectively made it one for
accion publiciana. After the lapse of the one-year period, the suit must be
commenced in the RTC.The respondent's actual entry on the land of the
petitioner was in 1985 but it was only sixteen years after that the petitioner
filed his ejectment case. The respondent should have filed an Accion
Publiciana case which is under the jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the
RTC should have not dismissed the case; it should have taken cognizance
of the case. If the case is tried on the merits by the Municipal Court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal may no longer
dismiss the case. Moreover, the RTC shall decide the case on the basis of
the evidence presented in the lower court, without prejudice to the
admission of the amended pleadings and additional evidence.

You might also like