Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58399)

Nature of the Case

• The case is not classified as a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case.
• The respondent, Melchor Tamayo, incorrectly claimed in his motion to dismiss that the petitioners, Eusebio and Teresita Bernabe, alleged he "forcibly took possession of the land," which is not present in their complaint.
• Tamayo asserts he occupies the lot as a lessee of the Bernabes' predecessor, necessitating a determination of whether this lease is binding on the Bernabe vendees.

Accion Publiciana Defined

• Accion publiciana, or plenaria de posesion, refers to an ejectment suit filed after one year from the cause of action's accrual or from when the lessee unlawfully withholds possession.
• Such cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, now known as the Regional Trial Court, rather than inferior courts.

Distinction from Precedent Cases

• The trial court's reliance on the Calubayan case is misplaced; the plaintiffs there sought to facilitate the squatter's continued possession rather than eject him.
• The Sy Oh and Canonoy cases involved multiple demands to vacate, with the one-year period calculated from the last demand, which is not applicable in the current case.

Jurisdictional Error by the Trial Court

• The trial court dismissed the Bernabes' action, incorrectly categorizing it as an ejectment suit within one year of the last demand, thus falling under city court jurisdiction.
• The Bernabes' verified complaint sought to establish their superior right to possess the land, despite Tamayo's long-term occupation under an alleged lease.

Implications of the Lease Agreement

• The court must resolve the validity of Tamayo's lease with Fejosera Investment, Inc., and its implications for the Bernabes, who purchased the land in 1973.
• The action is fundamentally ab...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-58399)

Case Overview

• This case involves a petition filed by Eusebio Bernabe and Teresita P. Bernabe against Judge Abelardo M. Dayrit and Melchor Tamayo.
• The central issue is the propriety of the lower court's dismissal of the Bernabe spouses' action, which was based on the premise that it fell within the jurisdiction of the city court due to being an ejectment suit filed within one year of the last demand.

Background

• The Bernabe spouses filed a verified complaint on February 16, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to evict Melchor Tamayo from a lot in Tondo, Manila, which they owned under a Torrens title.
• They requested the removal of Tamayo's house and sought compensation amounting to P6,375 for the period from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 1981, and P75 per month starting February 1981.
• A formal demand was made by the spouses through their counsel’s letter dated November 8, 1980.

Respondent's Allegations

• Tamayo claimed to have occupied the lot since 1951 under a lease from Fejosera Investment, Inc., at a monthly rate of fifteen pesos.
• He asserted that his house was constructed with the lessor’s consent and contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case.
• Following his ans...continue reading