FACTS:
Petitioners filed five (5) separate complaints for accion publiciana and/or recovery of possession against herein respondents and a certain Reynaldo Peralta. They uniformly alleged in the Complaints that: they are owners of three (3) parcel of land which are located at Barangay Taft, Surigao City; they inherited the lots form the predecessor-in-interest, Alfonso Yusingco; they were in possession of the said properties prior to and at the start of the Second World War, but lost possession thereof during the war; after the war, petitioners discovered that the subject properties were occupied by several persons, which prompted them to file separate cases for accion reinvindicatoria and recovery of possession against these persons; during the pendency of these cases, herein respondents entered different portions of these properties and occupied the same without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners.
Petitioners tolerated such acts of the respondent for they did not have sufficient resources to protect their property at that time. Subsequently, the cases that they earlier filed were decided in their favor and they were declared the owners of the subject properties; thereafter, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate the said properties, but the latter refused.
Respondents raised, in their Answer, that they have been in possession of the subject properties for more than thirty (30) years; and that petitioners never actually possessed the said properties and that they never had title over the same.
MTCC Branch 1, Surigao City rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The earlier case for accion reinvindicatoria became final and executory and hence, petitioners were declared the true and lawful co-owners fo the subject properties. On the other hand, respondents, through evidences, showed that they were mere intruders on the lots in question and thus, a judicially-declared owners of the said lots, petitioners, are entitled to possession thereof as against the respondents whose entries into the said properties are illegal.
Respondents filed an appeal before the RTC of Surigao City but the latter affirmed the decision of the lower court with modifications.
Respondents, then, filed before the CA a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
The CA ruled that previous decisions of the lower courts in holding that petitioners are owners of the subject properties and are, thus, entitled to legal possession thereof, are based on a previous accion reinvindicatoria, which is a suit in personam.
The CA held that, being an action in personam, the judgments in the said case binds only the parties properly impleaded therein. Since respondents were not parties to the said action, the CA concluded that they could not be bound by the judgments declaring petitioners as owners of the disputed properties. Hence, petitioners' present actions to recover possession of the said properties from respondents, on the basis of the said judgments, must fail.
Petitioners, aggrieved by the decision of the CA, filed instant petition before this court for a review on certiorari contending that the assailed decision of CA is replete with legal infirmities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the final and executory decisions rendered in a previous accion reinvindicatoria, finding petitioners to be the lawful owners of the subject properties, are binding upon respondnets.
RULING:
The Court ruled in the affirmative.
A perusal of the complaints filed by petitioners shows that the actions were captioned as "Accion Publiciana and/or Recovery of Possession". However, the Court agrees with the ruling the lower courts that the complaints filed were actually accion reinvindicatoria.
The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature, lies in the proper municipal triual court or metropolitan trial court. Both actions must be brought within one (1) 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. The issue in said cases is the right to physical possession.
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of the forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. On the other hand, accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding.
Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is, thus, an action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership.The judgment in such a case determines the ownership of the property and awards the possession of the property to the lawful owner. It is different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title.
It is cleared, on the basis of the above discussions, that the lower courts did not err in ruling that the suits filed by petitioners are accion reinvindicatoria, not accion publiciana, as petitioners seek to recover possession of the subject lots on the basis of their ownership thereof.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision penned by the Court of Appeals is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
No comments:
Post a Comment