ENCARNACION v.

AMIGO
G.R. No. 169793; September 15, 2006
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.

DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is
determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted
therein.

FACTS:
Petitioner, Encarnacion, became the registered owner of 2 lots in Cauayan, Isabela in 1995.
However, way back in 1985, the respondent, Amigo, took possession of a portion of the said
lots without the permission of then owner, Magpantay. The respondent continued possession
even after the lots were transferred into the name of the petitioner.

On February 1, 2001, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent demanding that he vacate
the property. But still, the respondent refused. The following month, the petitioner filed a
complaint for ejectment in the MTC. The MTC decided in favor of the petitioner. However, on
appeal, the RTC dismissed the case stating that the MTC had no jurisdiction of the case and
consequently, the RTC had no appellate jurisdiction thereof.

After filing a petition for review, the CA held that the proper action in this case was not an
unlawful detainer but instead, an accion publiciana. Thus, the case should be remanded to the
RTC for further proceedings. The petitioner then brought an appeal before the SC contending
that the action for ejectment was proper and that the MTC had jurisdiction.

ISSUE/S:
W/N the CA erred in holding that the proper action in this case is accion publiciana and not
unlawful detainer as determined by the allegations in the complaint filed? (NO)

RULING:
The Supreme Court first distinguished the difference between an accion interdictal for unlawful
detainer and an accion publiciana. The former involves the recovery of physical possession
where the dispossession has not lasted for more than a year and must be brought in the proper
inferior court. On the other hand, the latter is for the recovery of the real right of possession
where the dispossession has lasted for more than one year and must be brought before the
proper RTC.

The Court also held that what determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action
pleased as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. On its face, the complaint must
show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.

In the case at bar, the respondent began occupying the subject property in 1985 while the
petitioner became the owner thereof in 1995. This makes the dispossession to have lapsed for
more than 6 years already. Consequently, the proper action the petitioner should have filed was
accion publiciana to which the RTC has jurisdiction. Thus, the CA did not err in remanding the
case to the RTC for further proceedings.

DISPOSITION:
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the CA to remand the case to the RTC is AFFIRMED.