G.R.No.

198356 April20,2015
ESPERANZA SUPAPO and the HEIRS OF ROMEO
SUPAPO,namely:ESPERANZA,REX EDWARD,RONALD TROY, ROMEO, JR.,
SHEILA LORENCE, al surnamed SUPAPO, and SHERYL FORTUNE
SUPAPO- SANDIGAN,Petitioners,vs.SPOUSES ROBERTO andSUSAN
DE JESUS,MACARIO BERNARDO,andTHOSE
PERSONSCLAIMINGRIGHTSUNDERTHEM,Respondents.

FACTS:
2
Weresolvethepetitionforreview
oncertiorari filedbypetitionersEsperanzaSupapoandRomeoSup
1

apo(Spouses Supapo)toassailthedecisionoftheCA.

TheSpousesSupapofiledacomplaint5foraccionpublicianaagainst
RobertoandSusandeJesus(SpousesdeJesus),
MacarioBernardo(Macario),andpersonsclaimingrightsunderth
.
em (colectively,therespondents),withtheMeTC ofP Calo
canCityThecomplaintsoughtocompeltherespondentstovacatea
pieceoflandlocatedinNovaliches,Quezon
City,registeredandtitledundertheSpousesSupapo’snames.The
landhasanassessedvalueof 39,980.0 asshown
intheDeclarationofRealPropertyValue(taxdeclaration)issue
dbytheOfficeoftheCityAssessorofCalocan.

TheSpousesSupapodidnotresideonthesubjectlot.Theyalsodi
dnotemployanoverse rbutheymadesuretovisitat
leastwiceayear.8Duringoneoftheirvisitsin19 2,theysaw
two(2)housesbuiltonthesubjectlot.Thehouseswere
.
builtwithouttheirknowledgeandpermission.Theylaterlearne
dthattheSpousesdeJesusoccupiedonehousewhile
Macariooccupiedtheotherone TheSpousesSupapodemandedfrom
therespondentstheimmediatesurenderofthe
subjectlotbybringingthedisputebeforetheapropriateLupon
gTagapamayapa.TheLuponissuedaKatibayanUpang
MakadulogsaHukuman(certificatetofileaction)forfailureofth
epartiestosetleamicably.

TheSpousesSupapothenfiledacriminalcase1 f
againsttherespondentsforviolationo
. theAnti-SquatingLaw
(P.D. 7 2).TheRTCconvictedtherespondents
Therespondentsap
ealedtheirconvictiontotheCA.14Whiletheap ealwas
pending,CongressenactedRepublicAct(RA)No.8368,otherwise
knownas"AnActRepealingPresidentialDecre No. 7
2,"whichresultedtothedismissalofthecriminalcase.

Notwithstandingthedismissal,theSpousesSupapomovedforthe
executionoftherespondents’civiliability,prayingthat
thelatervacatethesubjectlot.TheRTCgrantedthemotion.The
CAreversedthedecisionandheld thatwiththerepeal
oftheAnti-
SquatingLaw,therespondents’criminalandciviliabilitiesw
ereextinguished.Incasesofviolationoftheir
propertyrights,theCAnotedthatrecoursemaybehadincourtbyfi
lingtheproperactionforecoveryofpossession.

TheSpousesSupapothusfiledthecomplaintforaccionpubliciana.
AfterfilingtheirAnswer,21therespondentsmovedtosettheiraffir
mativedefensesforpreliminaryhearing2 andargued that:
(1)thereisanotheractionpendingbetwe nthesameparties;
(2)thecomplaintforaccionpublicianaisbaredby
statuteoflimitations;and(3)theSpousesSupapo’scauseofac
tionisbaredbypriorjudgment.TheMeTC deniedthe
motiontosettheaffirmativedefensesforpreliminaryhearing.It
ruledthatheargumentsadvancedbytherespondents are
evidentiaryin nature,which atbestcan be utilized in the
course ofthe trial.The MeTC likewise denied the
respondents’motionforeconsideration.

TheRTCgrantedthepetitionforcertiorariandheldtha
t
accionpublicianafalswithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheR
TC. TheCAdismissedtheap
ealandheldthathecomplaintforaccionpublicianashouldhavebe
nlodgedbeforetheRTC
andthatheperiodtofiletheactionhadprescribed.

ISSUE:
WhethertheMeTCproperlyacqui

redjurisdiction; RULING:
YES
. (1)TheMeTCproperlyacquiredjurisdiction;
(2)thecauseofactionhasnotprescribed;and(3)thecomplaintis
not baredbyresjudicata.

AccionPublicianaandtheJurisdictionoftheMeTC
Accionpublicianaisanordinarycivilproce
dingtodeterminethebeterightofpossessionofrealtyindepend
entoftitle.It
referstoanejectmentsuitfiledaftertheexpirationofoneyearf
rom theaccrualofthecauseofactionorfrom theunlawful with
oldingofpossessionoftherealty.

Inthepresentcase,theSpousesSupapofiledanactionfortherecov
eryofpossessionofthesubjectlotbutheybased
theirbeterightofpossessiononaclaim ofownership.

ThisCourthasheldthatheobjectiveoftheplaintiffsinaccionpu
blicianaistorecoverpossessiononly,notownership.
However,wherethepartiesraisetheissueofownership,thecour
tsmaypassupontheissuetodeterminewhobetwe n
thepartieshastherightopossesstheproperty.

Thisadjudicationisnotafinaldeterminationoftheissueofowne
rship;itisonlyforthepurposeofresolvingtheissueof
possession,wheretheissueofownershipisinseparablylinkedto
theissueofpossession.Theadjudicationoftheissueof
ownership,beingprovisional,isnotabartoanactionbetwe
nthesamepartiesinvolvingtitletotheproperty.The
adjudication,inshort,isnotconclusiveontheissueofownersh
ip.36

Thus,whilewewildissecttheSpousesSupapo’sclaim
ofownershipoverthesubjectproperty,wewilonlydosoto
determineiftheyortherespondentsshouldhavetherightofposs
ession.Havingthusdeterminedthathedisputeinvolves
possessionoverarealproperty,wenowresolvewhichcourthasth
ejurisdictiontohearthecase.

Inthepresentcase,theSpousesSupapoalegedthattheassessedv
alueofthesubjectlot,locatedinMetroManila, isP39,980.0
.Thisisproven bythe taxdeclaration45issued bythe Office ofthe
CityAssessorofCalo can.The
respondentsdonotdenythegenuinenessandauthenticityofthis
taxdeclaration.

GiventhatheSpousesSupapodulycompliedwiththejurisdictiona
lrequirements,weholdthatheMeTCofCalo can
properlyacquiredjurisdictionoverthecomplaintforaccionpub
liciana.Thecauseofactionhasnotprescribed