Facts:

The case involves A. M. Raymundo & Co. as the appellant and Benito Symaco as the appellee. The events unfolded in Malabon, Rizal, with the complaint being filed on June 28, 1967. A. M. Raymundo & Co. asserted ownership over a parcel of land measuring approximately 328 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 39853, claiming that on June 21, 1957, Symaco unlawfully entered a portion of this land measuring 32.42 square meters, allegedly through force and stealth, and began constructing a building on it. In his defense, Symaco countered that he was the rightful owner of the land based on its purchase from A. M. Raymundo & Co. on July 21, 1954, which was backed by TCT No. 3560 registered in his name. Symaco contended that the issue at hand pertained to ownership, thus beyond the jurisdiction of the court handling forcible entry cases, and he sought damages amounting to P2,000. The Justice of the Peace Court of Malabon subsequently dismissed the c

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Appellant A. M. Raymundo & Co. filed a complaint for forcible entry against appellee Benito Symaco.
• The complaint was brought before the Justice of the Peace Court of Malabon, Rizal, where the primary allegation was that appellant was the owner of a parcel of land (approximately 328 square meters, covered by TCT No. 39853) in Malabon.
• Appellant asserted that on or about June 21, 1957, appellee unlawfully entered a portion of the said land (approximately 32.42 square meters) and began constructing a building thereon.

Claims and Counterclaims

• Appellant’s Position
• Maintained ownership of the disputed land as evidenced by the title.
• Sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent appellee from constructing on the area allegedly belonging to appellant.
• Appellee’s Position
• Claimed that he was the rightful owner of the disputed parcel, having purchased the land from appellant on July 21, 1954.
• Presented evidence in the form of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3560 issued in his name.
• Asserted that the issue was one of ownership rather than mere possession, and argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over such a matter.
• Claimed actual and moral damages of P2,000.00 due to the alleged unfounded action.

Proceedings in Lower Courts

• The Justice of the Peace Court of Malabon dismissed the complaint on jurisdictional grounds since the real issue appeared to be one of ownership rather than forcible entry.
• Appellant appealed the dismissal to the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
• At the pre-trial, the Court of First Instance noted that the matter involved an encroachment issue along the boundary of the property (specifically, about 70 centimeters along Calle Real as per Plan SWO-63711).
• The court directed the parties to submit further pleadings to properly address the ownership issues, thus raising the question of whether the case should be heard under its original or appellate jurisdiction.

Evidentiary Developments and Interim Relief

• The court appointed Mamerto Infante, supervising surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, as commissioner to conduct a relation survey of the land.
• Survey Findings
• The survey revealed that appellee was occupying approximately 5.51 square meters of appellant’s land.
• Indicated that the encroached area formed part of Calle Real, as corroborated by the sketch plan attached to the report.
• On December 29, 1959, upon a verified motion by appellant, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting appellee from constructing on the disputed area.
• Appellee’s subsequent motion for reconsideration of the injunction was denied by the court.

Final Developments in the Court of First Instance

• On the scheduled hearing, appellee’s counsel highlighted his earlier unresolved motion to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
• The court ordered the filing of a formal motion to dismiss, conditioned by the evidence already on record.
• Finding that the evidence indicated that the dispute inherently involved issues of ownership—and by extension, affected the Municipality of Malabon—the Court of First Instance issued an order dismissing the case with an option:
• The court expressed willingness to hear the case in its original jurisdiction should the parties file the proper pleadings to fully address the ownership controversy.
• Concurrently, the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved.
• Appellant, preferring to continue with the appellate remedy rather than refile under original jurisdiction, interposed the present appeal.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Issue

• Whether the proceedings in a forcible entry action could subsume a controversy primarily concerning property ownership.
• Whether the lower courts (Justice of the Peace and Court of First Instance) correctly determined that the true issue between the parties was one of title, not mere possession.

Factual Boundary and Encroachment Dispute

• Whether the disputed area occupied by appellee was part of appellant’s land or if it was an integral part of Calle Real.
• Implications of the survey findings on the resolution of the ownership dispute.

Proper Remedy and Court’s Jurisdiction

• Whether the matter should be adjudicated using original jurisdiction with the filing of proper pleadings for title determination, or if it could be addressed under an appellate process.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)