Reyes v. Hon. Sta Maria (Teehankee, 1979) Facts: 1.

Artemio and Hilarion Reyes(Reyes) FILED: action termed as one to quiet title against private respondents Hilaria Santos De Lopez and Pilar Santos (Santos) @ CFI Bulacan. They alleged that: a. They are owners of a lot in Barrio San Sebastian, Hagonoy, Bulacan. b. Through their tolerance and goodwill they let Maximo Santos(Father of defendants occupy the same on the condition that (1)Instead of rental Santos will pay the real estate taxes, (2)Santos would leave anytime Reyess demanded them to do so. c. Feb 1986 Reyes verbally demanded Santos to vacate. The latter unreasonably refused at the same time claiming ownership thourgh purchase of the land from a certain Pablo Aguinaldo. 2. They prayed that they be declared as owners, possession be given to them, P50 as rental/damages, and attys fees. 3. Santos FILED: Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. That the case is actually one for ejectment or unlawful detainer which falls in the exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior or municipal court not the CFI. 4. CFI: Granted motion. Case DISMISSED. The allegation that it was an action was instituted in order to quiet title is not sufficient by itself to consider this case as that action under CC476(Property) Issue: w/n the action is that of unlawful detainer cognizable only by the MTC/ accion publiciana in which case CFI has jurisdiction. Decision: The action is that of accion publiciana, since it was to recover possession de jure (if not one of accion reindivicatoria) falling within the jurisdiction of the CFI and not a mere action for detainer to recover physical possession that would fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC. (Recall Santos claimed they owned the land) 1. Recall three types for recovery of possession and/ ownership. Accion interdictal, Accion publiciana, Accion reindivicatoria. 2. In accion interdictal/forcible entry/unlawful detainer cases it is the physical possession and not the possession de jure which is in question. 3. HERE the lower court was in error, since it was clear in the complaint that Santos refused to deliver possession due to adverse claim of ownership. Clearly the present case is one for recovery of the right to possess and falls within the jurisdiction of the CFI. 4. Reyes correctly filed their accion publiciana. ACCORDINGLY LC judgment set aside, REMANDED to continue proceedings. Czarina Dee