G.R. No. 234655 , September 11, 2019
Jessica Lio Martinez, Petitioner, v. Heirs of Remberto F. Lim, namely: Fabiana Timbancaya Lim, Chinita Lim Pe, Minyani Lim Baylosis, Genaro T. Lim, Emeline Lim Angeles and Belinda Lim Villegas, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Jim Gerald Lim Pe, Respondents.

FACTS

The respondents, heirs of Remberto Lim, filed a complaint for Forcible Entry with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction against petitioner Jessica Lio Martinez before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Coron-Busuanga. Respondents claimed ownership and possession of a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 006-0515-A, originally in the name of the heirs of Socorro Lim and later acquired by Remberto Lim. Adjoining this land was a property owned by Remberto’s brother, Jose Lim, covered by OCT No. E-9487. Jose Lim sold this property to spouses Dorothy and Alexander Medalla, who subdivided it. Petitioner Martinez subsequently purchased Lots 2-D, 2-E, and 2-F from the Medallas and was issued corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs). On August 10, 2010, petitioner and her father entered the property, uprooted acacia mangium trees planted by Remberto Lim and his son, fenced the area, and placed “No Trespassing” signs. Respondents demanded that petitioner remove the fence and vacate the encroached portion, but petitioner ignored the demand. The MCTC ruled in favor of respondents, ordering petitioner to vacate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed, holding that respondents had a better right of possession based on prior physical possession evidenced by tax declarations, a Tree Plantation Record Form, and a CENRO memorandum, and concluding that a portion of respondents’ property had been erroneously included in the titles issued to the Medallas and subsequently to petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether the action for forcible entry was the proper remedy to resolve the dispute between the parties.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the summary action for forcible entry was not the proper remedy. The core of the dispute was a boundary controversy, essentially involving a question of ownership—specifically, whether the contested portion pertained to the land of respondents (heirs of Remberto Lim) or was included in the titles derived from Jose Lim and held by petitioner. An ejectment case, such as forcible entry, deals primarily with the issue of prior physical possession (possession de facto) and is not the proper venue for resolving questions of title or boundary disputes. The Court distinguished between possessory actions: accion interdictal (forcible entry/unlawful detainer, for recovery of physical possession within one year), accion publiciana (for recovery of the better right of possession), and accion reivindicatoria (for recovery of ownership). The present case, which hinged on determining whose property the disputed area truly belonged to based on technical descriptions and possible encroachment, fell within the realm of accion reivindicatoria. Since the issue of possession could not be resolved without first settling the question of ownership, the MCTC acted without jurisdiction. The CA committed reversible error in affirming the ejectment order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and dismissed the forcible entry complaint without prejudice to the filing of the proper action.