Scribd
Upload
128 views2 pages

77 - Regis v. CA

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not decide the forcible entry case as an accion publiciana. While the CA commented on the RTC's observation that an accion publiciana would have been better, this was a legitimate appellate comment. A forcible entry case concerns physical possession and is filed within 1 year and in municipal court, while an accion publiciana is filed 1 year after dispossession in RTC to determine better right to possession. The petition lacked merit because a forcible entry case does not consider who has right to occupy but proves peaceful possession was intruded, and accion publiciana determines better possession right after 1 year.

Uploaded by

Ron Jacob Almaiz
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
128 views2 pages

77 - Regis v. CA

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not decide the forcible entry case as an accion publiciana. While the CA commented on the RTC's observation that an accion publiciana would have been better, this was a legitimate appellate comment. A forcible entry case concerns physical possession and is filed within 1 year and in municipal court, while an accion publiciana is filed 1 year after dispossession in RTC to determine better right to possession. The petition lacked merit because a forcible entry case does not consider who has right to occupy but proves peaceful possession was intruded, and accion publiciana determines better possession right after 1 year.

Uploaded by

Ron Jacob Almaiz
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

FELIPE REGIS, JR.

, petitioner,
vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AGAPITO GARCIA, respondents July 31, 2007

NATURE: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the
Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated September 13, 2001, and the Resolution dated February
15, 2002.

DOCTRINE: Forcible entry is distinct from accion publiciana.

First, forcible entry should be filed within one year from the unlawful dispossession of the real
property, while accion publiciana is filed a year after the unlawful dispossession of the real
property.

Second, forcible entry is concerned with the issue of the right to the physical possession of the
real property; in accion publiciana, what is subject of litigation is the better right to possession
over the real property.

Third, an action for forcible entry is filed in the municipal trial court and is a summary action,
while accion publiciana is a plenary action in the RTC.

FACTS:
 Felipe Regis and Genoviva Garcia filed a complaint for forcible entry against Agapito
Garcia, with the MTCC. The MTCC rendered a Decision dismissing the case. The Court
finds that the defendant Garcia is a possessor and owner in fee simple of a residential lot
along the former shorelines of Cabili Avenue, Iligan City. The Court hereby opines that
plaintiff Regis had failed to prove any cause of action against defendant Garcia. Hence, the
Court hereby order the Dismissal of the case for having no cause of action. No appeal was
taken from this decision.
 A case for ejectment was then filed by Agapito Garcia against Felipe Regis Jr. (son of
Felipe Regis on the first case) and the Members of His Family.
 The MTCC dismissed the complaint for failure of Garcia to prove his prior physical
possession of the property in question. MTCC stated that evidence presented by Garcia
proved only his right of possession, not his prior physical possession of the contested
property which is the core issue in forcible entry cases.
 Garcia appealed the decision of the MTCC to the RTC. The RTC issued a decision reversing
the decision of the trial court and ordering Regis and the members of his family to remove
their structures and to vacate the property under dispute. The Court believes that plaintiff-
appellant Garcia is the rightful possessor of the lot in dispute and that defendant-appellee
Regis being an intruder and deforciant should be ordered to restore the lot to the plaintiff-
appellant Garcia.
 Regis filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) praying for the reinstatement in toto of
the MTCC Decision. CA affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC.
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by Regis but the same was denied by the CA.
 Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
1. W/N the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in deciding an appealed forcible entry case as
an accion publiciana. (NO)
2. W/N an action for forcible entry may be treated as an accion publiciana. (NO)
RULING: The petition is devoid of merit.

A cursory reading of the CA Decision would reveal that it did not decide the forcible entry
case as accion publiciana. The CA only commented on the observation of the RTC that it would
have been better if Garcia filed an accion publiciana instead of a complaint for forcible entry.
This is a legitimate comment of the appellate court on the discussion in the RTC decision.

A complaint for forcible entry may be brought within a year from unlawful dispossession before
a municipal trial court in a summary proceeding. This summary action is for the recovery of
physical possession only. Title or ownership over the property is not in issue. However, when
the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the same, then the issue of ownership shall
be resolved in order to decide the issue of possession. The judgment rendered shall be
conclusive with respect to possession only, shall not bind the title or affect the ownership of
the property, and shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the
land or building.

In an action for forcible entry, whether or not the person occupying the property has the right to
occupy the same is not important. What is essential is that the party filing the case be able to
prove that his peaceful physical possession of the property was arbitrarily intruded by another.
The rationale for this remedy is that a person who is in peaceful possession of property must not
be ejected therefrom by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. A person who believes
that he has a right of possession over a certain property that is in the hands of another must not
take the law into his own hands. He cannot just barge in and take the property that is actually
occupied by another.

A year after the unlawful dispossession of property, the aggrieved party may file an accion
publiciana. The better right to possession, as distinguished from the right to physical possession,
is litigated in this plenary action as an ordinary civil proceeding in the RTC.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy