Peralta-Labrador v.

Bugarin
G.R. No. 165177 – August 25, 2005
J. Ynares-Santiago

Topic: Available actions to recover possession/ownership – Re: Immovable Property

Doctrine: Cases for forcible entry should be filed with the MTC upon knowledge of information, if past
one year, then the case should be filed with the RTC for accion pauliana or accion reivindicatoria
Petitioners: Lila V. Peralta Labrador
Respondents: Silverio Bugarin, substituted by his widow, Consolacion Bugarin

Summary: Peralta-Labrador filed a case for recovery of possession and ownership with the MTC of San
Felipe Zambales against Bugarin, whom she says has been in unlawful possession of her lot. The Court
stated that since she filed the case two years after she learned of Bugarin’s possession of the lot, it should
have been filed with the RTC for a different cause of action. Her action for forcible entry had prescribed
after the 1-year mark, and is not eligible for a summary proceeding anymore.

FACTS:
 Petitioner alleged that she is the owner of Cadastral Lot No. 2650, 400 sqm, located at Barangay
Manglicmot, San Felipe, Zambales which she purchased from Sps. Pronto in 1976
o In 1977, she was issued a tax declaration for the lot after she had paid the taxes due
o 1990, the DPWH constructed a road which traversed CLN. 2650 thereby separating
108sqm from the rest of petitioner’s lot
o 1994: Respondent Bugarin forcibly took possession of the 108sqm and refused to vacate
the same despite the pleas of petitioner
o January 18, 1996: Petitioner filed a case for “Recovery of Possession and Ownership” with
the MTC of San Felipe, Zambales
 MTC: Dismissed the case. Court was in favor of Respondent for failure of the plaintiff to establish
the preponderance of evidence of prior actual physical possession and present title over the lot in
her favor
 RTC: Affirmed MTC decision
 CA: Modified RTC decision; deleted monetary awards

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the CA erred in siding with the Respondent – NO
 Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Section 1. Who may institute proceedings and when. – … a person deprived of the possession
of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth… may at any time
within one year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action
in the proper MTC against the person/persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such
possession, together with the damages and costs.
 The case did not explicitly say it, but based on the discussion, the main issue was whether the MTC
had jurisdiction over the case
o In Lopez v. David Jr., it was held that an action for forcible entry is a quieting process and
the one year time bar for filing a suit is in pursuance of the summary nature of the action
o Thus, proceedings in the MTC shall be nullified if it improperly assumed jurisdiction of a
case – in which a case for unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession had exceeded
one year
o After the lapse of one year, the suit must be commenced in the RTC via an accion pauliana,
a suit for recovery of the right to possess or as an accion reivindicatoria, an action to
recover ownership as well as possession
  The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations of the complaint, thus in ascertaining
whether or not the action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior courts, the averments
of the complaint and the character of the relief sought are to be examined
o In the case at bar, the plaintiff alleges that:
 She has been in open, continuous, exclusive and adverse as well as notorious
possession of the said lot and in the concept of an owner since she acquired it in
1976, until the time when the defendant took possession forcibly two years ago
o It is clear in her averments that the unlawful possession occurred two years prior to her
filing the complaint for forcible entry in the MTC. The cause of action for forcible entry
has prescribed, and the MTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the case
 The case should have been filed with the RTC, either for accion pauliana or accion
reivindicatoria
 Assuming arguendo that the MTC had jurisdiction over the case, the complaint should still be
dismissed because petitioner failed to prove that the controverted part of her original lot was hers.
Only submitted Survey Notification Card from the Bureau of Lands

RULING: “WHEREFORE, the complaint in the Civil Case is DISMISSED.”