Case Digest (G.R. No. 186375)
Facts:
Elena Alcedo v. Sps. Jesus Sagudang and Marlene Padua‑Sagudang, G.R. No. 186375, June 17, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Elena Alcedo filed a Complaint for Ejectment with application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction on 2 December 2005 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan (Civil Case No. S‑922). She alleged that she bought parcels covered by certain tax declarations from siblings Pedro and Victorino Bacdang (one half from each by deeds dated 22 November 1995 and an affidavit/deed of sale dated 4 June 2004), that she had been in possession since the 1980s (tacking possession of predecessors), and that in November 2005 respondents entered the premises by force, erected a fence and thereby deprived her of possession and of the fruits of the land.
Respondents Spouses Jesus Sagudang and Marlene Padua‑Sagudang answered that they owned the adjacent lot (Tax Declaration No. 021‑00539, Cadastral Lot No. 1027‑C), acquired from the Cawises on 31 December 2001, had been in possession since 2002, built improvements and paid taxes, and that petitioner’s alleged possession of the immediately adjacent lot (1027‑B) only began in 2004. They denied forcible dispossession and maintained that any dispute was essentially a boundary/action to recover ownership proper for the Regional Trial Court.
On 19 May 2006 the MCTC ruled for petitioner, finding forcible entry and ordering respondents to remove the fence, surrender possession and to pay attorneys’ fees. Respondents appealed; on 4 December 2006 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, affirmed the MCTC “in toto.” Respondents thereafter secured a reversal in the Court of Appeals, which on 18 February 2008 set aside both lower courts’ decisions and dismissed the complaint for forcible entry on the ground that the case was essentially a boundary dispute outside the MCTC’s jurisdiction and for resolution by the RTC.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 27 January 2009. Petitioner filed a Petition for Revie...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Municipal Circuit Trial Court have jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint for forcible entry, or was the case a boundary dispute cognizable exclusively by the RTC?
- If jurisdiction lies with the MCTC, did petitioner prove the essential elements of forcible entry (in particular, prior physical possession) so as to warra...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)