MA. VIDIA B.

LARGO
CIVIL PROCEDURE
FACT PATTERN

Facts

A (a resident of City of Manila) and B (a resident of Makati City)

are siblings and are co-owners of a parcel of land containing an area of 1000

sq.m. located at Batangas City. They verbally agreed that the manner of

partition of the said lot would be based on the existing location of their

respective houses separated by the banana trees.

Several years after, A caused the construction of water pipes

connecting to the Maynilad water system dislocating the banana trees.

When B discovered the construction of water pipes, he asked a

geodetic engineer to survey the property to determine on whose side were the

pipes placed. As per the geodetic engineer, the pipes were placed on the area

assigned to B occupying an estimated area of 10sq.m.

Cause of Action

1. A stealthy intruded and occupied a portion of B’s property by

constructing water pipes connecting to Maynilad water system dislocating the

banana trees thereon without his knowledge and consent.

 2. A is builder in bad faith for the construction of water pipes made

knowingly on the land not belonging to him or without authority.

Relief that may be sought by B

1. On the first cause of action

For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiffs must allege and prove:

a. that they have prior physical possession of the property

b. that they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation,

threat, strategy or stealth

c. and that the action was filed within one (1) year from the time the

owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical

possession of the property.

The Rules of Court in fact expressly provide in Section 16, Rule 70 of

the Rules of Court provides that the issue of ownership shall be resolved in

deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is intertwined with

the issue of ownership.

2. On the second cause of action

 In cases of builders in bad faith, B, as the property owner can choose to

appropriate the structure, without any obligation to pay any indemnity except

for necessary expenses, plus damages or ask the removal of the structure at A’s

expense, plus damages or compel A to pay the value of the land, plus damages.

Article 449 of the Civil Code applies to builders in bad faith, to wit:

“He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses

what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.”

Article 450 of the Civil Code will also apply. It provides:

“The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown

in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or

sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the

expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the

builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.”

Thus, the following are the three alternative rights of B as the property owner:

1. To appropriate what has been built, planted or sown in bad faith, without

any obligation to pay any indemnity therefore except for necessary

expenses for the preservation of the land (Art. 452, Civil Code), plus

damages or
 2. To ask the removal or demolition of what has been built at A’s expense,

plus damages or

3. To compel A to pay the price or value of the land, whether or not the

value of the land is considerably more than the value of the

improvements, and the sower, to pay the proper rent, plus damages.

Parties

B, as the owner of the land, is an indispensable party as the plaintiff and

A as the builder in bad faith, is the indispensable party as the defendant.

Jurisdiction

a. On the first cause of action

Since this is a case of forcible entry, the Metropolitan Trial Court of

Batangas City has jurisdiction over the case.

BP 129.Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil

cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

 1. Xxx

2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry

and unlawful detainer : xxx

b. On the second cause of action

The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the second cause of action.

The total amount of money sought to be recovered is P520,00 exclusive of

interest.

BP 129. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS. Section 19.

Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise

exclusive original jurisdiction:

Revised Rules of Court Rule 2. Section 5. Joinder of

causes of action. — A party may in one pleading assert, in the

alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may

have against an opposing party, subject to the following

conditions:

(a) xxx

(b) xxx
 (c) xxx

(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally

for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be

the test of jurisdiction.

Venue

a. On the first cause of action

B must file the action on Batangas City where the property was located.

Revised Rules of Court Rule 4 Section 1. Venue of real

actions. — Actions affecting title to or possession of real

property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in

the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein

the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and

tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city

wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is

situated.
b. On the second cause of action

B may choose to file in Batangas City or Makati City for the recovery of

a sum of money from A. Under the Revised Rules of Court Rule 4 Section 2.

Venue of personal actions. All other actions may be commenced and tried

where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the

defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-

resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.