DIGEST/ LINALYN BATION/ EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, REPRESENTED BY DR. GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR. (NOW DR. PRIMO JOEL S. ALVEZ) CHIEF OF SANITARIUM vs SPOUSES ANASTACIO AND PERLA BARBARONA

 

G.R. No. 195814, April 04, 2018

EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, REPRESENTED BY DR. GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR. (NOW DR. PRIMO JOEL S. ALVEZ) CHIEF OF SANITARIUM, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ANASTACIO AND PERLA BARBARONA, Respondents.

FACTS:

    Respondents, Barbarona allege that they are the owners of the land occupied by petitioner.  They claim that they have acquired the property from Spouses Gonzales whose ownership was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-824. Per the Spouses Barbarona's verification, OCT No. RO-824 was reconstituted based on Decree No. 699021, issued to the Spouses Gonzales by the Land Registration Office.

       The Spouses Barbarona filed a Complaint for Ejectment Complaint before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Mandaue City against the occupants, including the petitioner. They alleged that demand letters were given to occupants to vacate premises. In their Answer, the occupants alleged that since they had been in possession of the property for more than 70 years, the case was effectively one for recovery of possession, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. They likewise claimed that the Spouses Barbarona were guilty of laches since it took more than 60 years for them to seek the issuance of a Torrens title over the property. They also averred that the Spouses Barbarona's certificate of title was void since they, the actual inhabitants of the property, were never notified of its issuance.

          The Municipal Trial Court in Cities ordered the occupants to vacate the property, finding that the action was one for unlawful detainer, and thus, within its jurisdiction. It likewise found that the Spouses Barbarona were the lawful owners and that the occupants were occupying the property by mere tolerance.

          The occupants appealed to the Regional Trial Court to which the court affirmed in toto the MTC’s decision. Petitioner filed for motion for reconsideration.

          Petitioner points out that respondents' Complaint before the trial court was a case for accion publiciana, not one for unlawful detainer, since respondents have not proven petitioner's initial possession to be one of mere tolerance. It claims that respondents' bare allegation that they merely tolerated petitioner's possession is insufficient in a case for unlawful detainer, especially with petitioner's possession of the property since 1930, which pre-dates the decree that was reconstituted in 1939. It argues that its long occupancy should have been the subject of judicial notice since it is a government hospital serving the city for decades and is even considered as a landmark of the city.

 

ISSUE:

          Whether or not the Spouses Anastacio and Perla Barbarona's complaint against Eversley Childs Sanitarium was for accion publiciana or for unlawful detainer

 

RULING:

          The action should be that of an accion publiciana. There are three (3) remedies available to one who has been dispossessed of property: (1) an action for ejectment to recover possession, whether for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; (2) accion publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion, or a plenary action to recover the right of possession; and (3) accion reivindicatoria, or an action to recover ownership.

          Although both ejectment and accion publiciana are actions specifically to recover the right of possession, they have two (2) distinguishing differences. The first is the filing period. Ejectment cases must be filed within one (1) year from the date of dispossession. If the dispossession lasts for more than a year, then an accion publiciana must be filed. The second distinction concerns jurisdiction. Ejectment cases, being summary in nature, are filed with the Municipal Trial Courts. Accion publiciana, however, can only be taken cognizance by the Regional Trial Court.

          In Carbonilla v. Abiera: A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must have turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess. It must be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such lawful possession must be established. If, as in this case, the claim is that such possession is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be proved.

          The same situation is present in this case. Respondents failed to state when petitioner's possession was initially lawful, and how and when their dispossession started. All that appears from the Complaint is that petitioner's occupation "is illegal and not anchored upon any contractual relations with [respondents.]

          This, however, is insufficient to determine if the action was filed within a year from dispossession, as required in an ejectment case. On the contrary, respondents allege that petitioner's occupation was illegal from the start. The proper remedy, therefore, should have been to file an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria to assert their right of possession or their right of ownership.

      Considering that respondents filed the improper case before the Municipal Trial Court, it had no jurisdiction over the case. Any disposition made, therefore, was void. The subsequent judgments of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which proceeded from the void Municipal Trial Court judgment, are likewise void.