GR 165177; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165177 , August 25, 2005
LILIA V. PERALTA-LABRADOR, Petitioner, vs. SILVERIO BUGARIN, substituted by his widow, CONSOLACION BUGARIN, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Lilia Peralta-Labrador filed a complaint for “Recovery of Possession and Ownership” with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Felipe, Zambales. She alleged ownership of a 108-square-meter portion of Cadastral Lot No. 2650, which was separated from her main lot by a road constructed in 1990. She claimed that respondent Silverio Bugarin forcibly took possession of this segregated portion in 1994. Respondent, in his answer, asserted continuous possession since 1955 and claimed the lot was included in his titled property, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-13011.
The MTC dismissed the complaint, declaring respondent the owner based on his OCT. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the ruling by deleting the MTC’s declaration of ownership in favor of respondent and the monetary awards, noting that the OCT was not formally offered in evidence. However, the CA affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding petitioner failed to prove prior physical possession or ownership.
ISSUE
Whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of possession.
RULING
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Petitioner’s complaint alleged she was deprived of possession by force in 1994, but she filed the case only in 1996, which is beyond the one-year period prescribed for forcible entry actions under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. An action for forcible entry must be filed within one year from the alleged unlawful deprivation of possession.
Since the complaint was filed beyond the one-year period, the proper action should have been either an accion publiciana (for recovery of possession) or an accion reivindicatoria (for recovery of ownership), both of which fall within the original jurisdiction of the RTC, not the MTC. The MTC therefore improperly assumed jurisdiction. The Court further noted that petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of ownership or prior possession, as her tax declaration did not reflect the specific 108-square-meter lot. Conversely, ownership could not be awarded to respondent either, as his OCT was not formally offered in evidence. The dismissal, however, was solely on jurisdictional grounds.