Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Encarnacion Vs Amigo Facts

    Uploaded by

    Benedick Ledesma
    The petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against the respondent in municipal trial court after the respondent took possession of part of petitioner's property in 1985 without permission and ignored a 2001 demand to vacate. The municipal court ruled for the petitioner but the regional trial court dismissed, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals said the proper action was one to recover possession (accion publiciana) which falls under regional trial court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the municipal court lacked jurisdiction given the length of dispossession, the regional trial court should not have dismissed but should have heard the case on merits based on evidence from lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Encarnacion Vs Amigo Facts

    Uploaded by

    Benedick Ledesma
    25 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against the respondent in municipal trial court after the respondent took possession of part of petitioner's property in 1985 without permission and ignored a 2001 demand to vacate. The municipal court ruled for the petitioner but the regional trial court dismissed, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals said the proper action was one to recover possession (accion publiciana) which falls under regional trial court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the municipal court lacked jurisdiction given the length of dispossession, the regional trial court should not have dismissed but should have heard the case on merits based on evidence from lower court.

    Original Description:

    Civpro Case Digest

    Original Title

    case 5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against the respondent in municipal trial court after the respondent took possession of part of petitioner's property in 1985 without permission and ignored a 2001 demand to vacate. The municipal court ruled for the petitioner but the regional trial court dismissed, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals said the proper action was one to recover possession (accion publiciana) which falls under regional trial court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the municipal court lacked jurisdiction given the length of dispossession, the regional trial court should not have dismissed but should have heard the case on merits based on evidence from lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    Encarnacion Vs Amigo Facts

    Uploaded by

    Benedick Ledesma
    The petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against the respondent in municipal trial court after the respondent took possession of part of petitioner's property in 1985 without permission and ignored a 2001 demand to vacate. The municipal court ruled for the petitioner but the regional trial court dismissed, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals said the proper action was one to recover possession (accion publiciana) which falls under regional trial court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the municipal court lacked jurisdiction given the length of dispossession, the regional trial court should not have dismissed but should have heard the case on merits based on evidence from lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ENCARNACION vs AMIGO

    ===================================================

    FACTS:

    Respondent Amigo allegedly entered and took posession of a portion of a


    property sometime in 1985 without the permission of the owner. In 1995,
    petitioner Encarnacion was the registered owner of the property by virtue
    of the waiver of rights executed by his mother-in-law. In 2001, a letter
    demanding the respondent to vacate the property was sent by the petitioner.
    The demand remained unheeded, which caused the petitioner to file a
    complaint for ejectment. The Municipal Trial Court rendered a decision in
    favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the
    case on the grounds that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
    Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for review. Based on the
    allegations in this complaint. the Court of Appeals held that the proper
    action is accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the RTC has properly acquired jurisdiction of the case

    HELD:
    While it is true that the demand letter was received by the respondent on
    February 12, 2001, thereby making the filing of the complaint for ejectment
    fall within the requisite one year from last demand for complaints for
    unlawful detainer, it is also true that petitioner became the owner of the lot
    in 1995 and has been since deprived possession of a portion thereof. Almost
    six years have elapsed from the date of the petitioner's dispossession in
    1995 up to his filing of complaint for ejectment in 2001. The length of time
    that the petitioner was dispossessed of his property made his cause of action
    beyond the ambit of an accion interdictal and effectively made it one for
    accion publiciana. After the lapse of the one-year period, the suit must be
    commenced in the RTC.The respondent's actual entry on the land of the
    petitioner was in 1985 but it was only sixteen years after that the petitioner
    filed his ejectment case. The respondent should have filed an Accion
    Publiciana case which is under the jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the
    RTC should have not dismissed the case; it should have taken cognizance
    of the case. If the case is tried on the merits by the Municipal Court without
    jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal may no longer
    dismiss the case. Moreover, the RTC shall decide the case on the basis of
    the evidence presented in the lower court, without prejudice to the
    admission of the amended pleadings and additional evidence.

    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