G.R. No. L-1748

FACTS:
The Bishop of Cebu, representing the Roman Catholic Church (plaintiff-appellee), filed an action against Mariano Mangaron (defendant-appellant) concerning a tract of land in Ermita, Manila. The plaintiff initially sought to recover possession and later amended the complaint to have the land declared as property of the Catholic Church and restored to it. The defendant claimed ownership by inheritance. Both parties presented only oral evidence regarding prior possession and acts of ownership. The trial court found that the defendant’s family had possessed the land until about 1887 when they vacated it pursuant to a municipal order declaring the area a “fire zone.” Thereafter, the parish priest fenced and maintained the land without objection. In 1898, the defendant re-entered the land and built a house without the Church’s consent. The trial court ordered the defendant to vacate the land.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff can maintain an action to recover possession (accion publiciana) after being unlawfully deprived thereof by the defendant, notwithstanding the passage of more than one year from the dispossession.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the defendant’s re-entry in 1898 was unlawful, as one who claims a right to property must seek aid from competent authorities and cannot take the law into his own hands. The Court further resolved the unraised legal question of whether the accion publiciana (a plenary action for recovery of possession) survived the enactment of the Civil Code. It ruled that the accion publiciana continues to exist. While an interdictal action (for recovery of physical possession) must be brought within one year, a plenary action based on a better right of possession (accion publiciana) can be filed after the expiration of that period. This action is proper to protect the right to possess, not merely the fact of possession. The Civil Code, in conjunction with the unrepealed procedural laws, supports this remedy. The plaintiff, having been in quiet and peaceful possession for about twenty years before the unlawful dispossession, properly maintained this action.