Scribd
Upload
140 views1 page

Publiciana. As Such, It Was A Plenary Action For The Recovery of The Real Right of Possession, Which

The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, finding that the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court. The case involved a complaint for recovery of possession and damages filed in the MCTC regarding an alleged encroachment and construction of a perimeter fence on the petitioner's property. The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the RTC reversed on appeal, finding the MCTC should have ruled on the prescription issue first. The Court of Appeals then annulled both lower court decisions, ruling the MCTC lacked jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court found jurisdiction should be determined by the assessed value of the disputed land, which was only P2,

Uploaded by

SORITA LAW
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
140 views1 page

Publiciana. As Such, It Was A Plenary Action For The Recovery of The Real Right of Possession, Which

The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, finding that the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court. The case involved a complaint for recovery of possession and damages filed in the MCTC regarding an alleged encroachment and construction of a perimeter fence on the petitioner's property. The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the RTC reversed on appeal, finding the MCTC should have ruled on the prescription issue first. The Court of Appeals then annulled both lower court decisions, ruling the MCTC lacked jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court found jurisdiction should be determined by the assessed value of the disputed land, which was only P2,

Uploaded by

SORITA LAW
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

187696 June 15, 2016


FILOMENA CABLING vs. RODRIGO DANGCALAN

NATURE: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1
declaring void for lack jurisdiction the Decision of the MCTC and RTC.

FACTS: Filomena Cabling filed a Complaint before the MCTC for recovery of possession and damages
against Rodrigo Dangcalan over respondent's alleged encroachment constructing a perimeter fence on
petitioner's property. The lot had an assessed value of P2, 100. Respondent denied any encroachment
on petitioner's property and raised prescription as an affirmative defense.

After trial, the MCTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner. It ruled that respondent's perimeter
fence had indeed encroached on some 13 square meters of petitioner's property. Upon appeal by
respondent, however, the RTC ruled differently and that the MCTC should have first ruled on the issue of
prescription. The CA denied the Petition and annulled both the RTC and MCTC Decisions for lack of
jurisdiction. It ruled that the MCTC had no jurisdiction because the Complaint was clearly an accion
publiciana. As such, it was a plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession, which
properly fell under the RTC's jurisdiction. Accordingly, all proceedings in petitioner's Complaint,
including her appeal before the RTC, were invalid and the decisions rendered thereon could be struck d
own at any time

ISSUE: whether the CA erred in nullifying the RTC and the MCTC Decisions on the ground that the MCTC
had no jurisdiction over petitioner's Complaint for accion publiciana

HELD: SECTION 19 Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Big.) 129,21 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691
provides: In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds (t]wenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(PS0,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court

Jurisdiction would now be determined by the assessed value of the disputed land, or of the adjacent lots
if it is not declared for taxation purposes. If the assessed value is not alleged in the complaint, the action
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Clearly, the CA erred in nullifying both the RTC and the MCTC
decisions.

FALLO: the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED

You might also like