Case Digest (G.R. No. 186204)
Facts:
Spouses Romeo T. Javier and Adorina F. Javier v. Spouses Evangeline Pineda de Guzman and Virgilio de Guzman, Arnel Pineda, Edgar Pineda, Henry Pineda and Regino Ramos, G.R. No. 186204, September 02, 2015, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On April 8, 2005, petitioners Romeo T. Javier and Adorina F. Javier filed a Complaint for Ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cabanatuan City against the respondents alleging that they were absolute owners of a 740-square-meter parcel covered by TCT No. T-113559 and that respondents unlawfully entered and enclosed a portion of that land on December 13, 2004 with a concrete hollow block fence. The complaint alleged cutting and removal of a large Java plum (duhat) tree, an on-site relocation survey by the City Engineer showing respondents’ encroachment of some 121.5434 square meters plus 26.43 square meters on the road right-of-way, failed barangay mediation, violations of the National Building Code (PD 1096) and of Section 68 of PD 705 (cutting of trees), and damages and attorneys’ fees.
Respondents answered that the fenced area had always been within the boundaries of the lot they occupied (formerly enclosed by barbed wire) and that the City Engineer’s survey was unilateral and did not account for the metes and bounds of the adjacent titled lot then in the name of their sister, Adoracion Pineda Ilustre. After trial-level proceedings, the MTCC dismissed the complaint by Decision dated March 15, 2007 on the ground that the controversy was essentially a boundary dispute — a plenary matter for the Regional Trial Court (RTC) — and thus beyond the proper relief in a summary ejectment proceeding.
Petitioners appealed to the RTC, which, in a Decision dated October 19, 2007, reversed the MTCC, ordered respondents to remove the fence and restore possession, awarded reimbursement of MTCC and appeal fees, P20,000 attorney’s fees, and P5,000 actual damages for the cut tree. Respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated September 24, 2008 (penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Noel G. Tijam concurring), reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTCC dismissal; the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 7, 2009.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court raising three issues: (1) whether the action qualified as forc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners present a proper forcible entry/ejectment action within the MTCC such that the MTCC erred in dismissing the complaint?
- Should petitioners’ remedy have been an action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria) instead of ejectment?
- Which court has jurisdiction to resolve a boundary dispute over the mete...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)