Accion Reivindicatoria

7/10/2017 Your Law Student Next Door: Recovery of Real Property: Accion Publiciana and Accion Reivindicatoria
Your Law Student Next Door search
Recovery of Real Property: Accion Publiciana and Accion

17th July 2016
Reivindicatoria
Accion Publiciana
An ordinary civil proceeding to recover the better right of possession.
The issue involved is not possession de facto but possession de jure.
The action is also used to refer to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of 1 year from the forcible entry or from
the unlawful withholding of possession.
Judgment is conclusive only on the question of possession, and not that of ownership. It does not bind the title or
affect the ownership of the property involved.
Plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title.
Accion Reivindicatoria
An ordinary civil proceeding to recover possession based on ownership.
The issue involved is ownership, which ordinarily includes possession. (Exception: An owner may not be entitled
possession because the possessor has some rights to be respected (i.e. contract of lease)).
Jurisdiction:
Regional Trial Court (Assessed Value of the Property > Php 20, 000)
Metropolitan Trial Court (Assessed Value of the Property <= Php 20, 000)
Prescription:
Within 10 years
Bokingo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 161739, May 4, 2006)

The nature of the case should be based on the allegations in the complaint. Busa's complaint had not sought to recover
the possession or ownership of the subject land. Rather, it was principally an action to enjoin Bokingo from committing
acts that would tend to prevent the survey of the subject land. It could not be said therefore that it is one of a possessory
action.
Hilario v. Salvador (G.R. No. 160384, April 29, 2005)

The action filed by Hilario did not involve a claim of ownership over the property. They prayed that Salvador vacate the
property and restore possession to them. Hence, it was an accion publiciana, or one for the recovery of possession of
the real property. It was not an accion reinvindicatoria or a suit for the recovery of possession over the real property as
owner.
The jurisdiction should have been lodged with the MTC because while Hilario failed to allege the value of the property, a
1991 tax declaration, stating that the value was about Php5, 000, was attached.
Urieta v. Aguilar (G.R. No. 164402, July 5, 2010)

The accion publiciana had not yet prescribed even if the possession was in 1968 and yet the case was filed in 1995
because the last demand to vacate was in 1994. Thus, it was still within the 10-year prescriptive period.
Bongato v. Malvar (G.R. No. 141614, August 14, 2002)

Malvar already had knowledge of Bongato's house since 1987. The cause of action for forcible entry filed by Malvar had
already prescribed when they filed the Complaint for ejectment in 1992. Hence, even if Malvar may be the owner of the
land, possession could not be wrested through a summary action for ejectment of Bongato, who had been occupying it
for more than 1 year.
Malvar should have presented their suit before the RTC in an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not before
the MTCC in summary proceedings for forcible entry. Their cause of action for forcible entry had prescribed already, and
the MTCC had no more jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
Encarnacion v. Amigo (G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006)

There was nothing in the allegation stating that saying that somebody tolerated the possession. Thus, it could not be
considered as possession by tolerance. From the very beginning, it was unlawful. If the possession from the beginning
is unlawful, it could not be unlawful detainer, but a forcible entry case, which prescribes within 1 year from the entry.
De Leon v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995)

A detainer suit exclusively involves the issue of physical possession. The case filed by De Leon was not an unlawful
detainer since it involved more than the issue of possession. De Leon prayed that Inayan be ordered to vacate the
premises, pay back rentals, unpaid irrigation fees, moral and exemplary damages and litigation fees.
Where the issues of the case extend beyond those commonly involved in unlawful detainer suits, such as for instance,
the respective rights of parties under various contractual arrangements and the validity thereof, the case is converted
from a mere detainer suit to one "incapable of pecuniary estimation," thereby placing it under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Manlapaz v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 39430, December 3, 1990)

Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger.
http://yourlawstudentnextdoor.blogspot.com/2016/07/recovery-of-real-property-accion.html 1/2
7/10/2017 Your Law Student Next Door: Recovery of Real Property: Accion Publiciana and Accion Reivindicatoria
In an ejectment case, the decision of the MTC on the issue on ownership is merely provisional. It is not final. It shall not
bar any other suit pertaining to the ownership of the property (accion publiciana, acction reivindicatoria).
Posted 17th July 2016 by AJ Solbrilla
0 Add a comment
Enter your comment...
Comment as: Atty. Sarah Jane Semblante (Google) Sign out
Publish Preview Notify me
Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger.

http://yourlawstudentnextdoor.blogspot.com/2016/07/recovery-of-real-property-accion.html 2/2

Accion Reivindicatoria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accion Reivindicatoria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accion Reivindicatoria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/10/2017 Your Law Student Next Door: Recovery of Real Property: Accion Publiciana and Accion Reivindicatoria

Your Law Student Next Door search

Recovery of Real Property: Accion Publiciana and Accion

Bokingo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 161739, May 4, 2006)

Hilario v. Salvador (G.R. No. 160384, April 29, 2005)

Urieta v. Aguilar (G.R. No. 164402, July 5, 2010)

Bongato v. Malvar (G.R. No. 141614, August 14, 2002)

Encarnacion v. Amigo (G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006)

De Leon v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 96107, June 19, 1995)

Manlapaz v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 39430, December 3, 1990)

Posted 17th July 2016 by AJ Solbrilla

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Atty. Sarah Jane Semblante (Google) Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger.

You might also like

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