APRIL 4, 2018
G.R. No. 195814
EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, represented by DR. GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR. (now DR.
PRIMO JOEL S. ALVEZ) CHIEF OF SANITARIUM,, Petitioner
vs
SPOUSES ANASTACIO PERLABARBARONA, Respondents
DECISION
III
There are three (3) remedies available to one who has been dispossessed of property: (I) 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. 73
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 (I) 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. 74
Petitioner argues that the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the case since respondents'
cause of action makes a case for ace ion publiciana and not ejectment through unlawful detainer. It
asserts that respondents failed to prove that petitioner occupied the property by mere tolerance.
Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by the allegations stated in the
complaint. Respondents' Complaint before the Municipal Trial Court states:
75
That [the occupants] are presently occupying the above-mentioned property of the [Spouses
Barbarona] without color [of] right or title. Such occupancy is purely by mere tolerance. Indeed, [the
occupants'] occupying the lot owned by [the Spouses Barbarona] is illegal and not anchored upon
any contractual relations with the [Spouses Barbarona.] 76
Indeed, no mention has been made as to how petitioner came to possess the property and as to
what acts constituted tolerance on the part of respondents or their predecessors-in-interest to allow
petitioner's occupation. In Carbonilla v. Abiera:
77
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.
Petitioner failed to prove that respondents' possession was based on his alleged tolerance. He did
1âwphi1
not offer any evidence or even only an affidavit of the Garcianos attesting that they tolerated
respondents' entry to and occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation of tolerance will not
suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show overt acts indicative of his or his predecessor's permission to
occupy the subject property . . . .
....
In addition, plaintiff must also show that the supposed acts of tolerance have been present right from
the very start of the possession - from entry to the property. Otherwise, if the possession was
unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy.
Notably, no mention was made in the complaint of
how entry by respondents was effected or how and
when dispossession started. Neither was there any
evidence showing such details.
In any event, petitioner has some other recourse. He may pursue recovering possession of his
property by filing an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action intended to recover the better right
to possess; or an accion reivindicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of real property. We stress,
however, that the pronouncement in this case as to the ownership of the land should be regarded as
merely provisional and, therefore, would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties
involving title to the land.
78
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.]"79
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.
