Scribd
Upload
179 views1 page

Sps NorbertevsMejia

This case involves a land dispute over a 160-square-meter parcel of land located in Caloocan City between the Spouses Norberte and the heirs of the Spouses Mejia represented by Mejia-Querubin. The Spouses Norberte claim to have purchased the land lawfully, though the Spouses Mejia also claim ownership over the same property. The MeTC dismissed the Spouses Norberte's complaint for ejectment due to lack of jurisdiction, but the RTC should have tried the case as an accion publiciana instead. Additionally, the court rules that lawyer Atty. Quimpo should be reprimanded for failing to provide the legal representatives of the Spouses Mejia after they

Uploaded by

John Lester Tan
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
179 views1 page

Sps NorbertevsMejia

This case involves a land dispute over a 160-square-meter parcel of land located in Caloocan City between the Spouses Norberte and the heirs of the Spouses Mejia represented by Mejia-Querubin. The Spouses Norberte claim to have purchased the land lawfully, though the Spouses Mejia also claim ownership over the same property. The MeTC dismissed the Spouses Norberte's complaint for ejectment due to lack of jurisdiction, but the RTC should have tried the case as an accion publiciana instead. Additionally, the court rules that lawyer Atty. Quimpo should be reprimanded for failing to provide the legal representatives of the Spouses Mejia after they

Uploaded by

John Lester Tan
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

Sps. Norberte vs Sps.

Mejia and/or their heirs represented by Mejia-Querubin

Review under Rule 45 for CA ruling of remand to the RTC. A 160-square-meter parcel of land
located in the Calaanan District, Caloocan City which was previously owned by Edgardo
Ongsiaco who sold it to Sps. Legaspi.

On March 28, 1988, the Sps Legaspi sold the lot in favor of petitioners. However, on July 6,
1990, the Sps Legaspi again sold the same property, this time to respondents. On June 6, 2003,
upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Sps
Norberte was executed. Since the demand was left unheeded, they filed a complaint for
ejectment on November 6, 2003.

MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction since, under the circumstances, the
summary action for unlawful detainer was no longer available because of prescription and the
proper action should have been accion publiciana.

Issue: 1. WON the proper action is unlawful detainer or accion publiciana


2. WON Atty. Quimpo should be held in contempt of court for failure to furnish the court
the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the Spouses Mejia, who both
died during the course of the proceedings.

1. Actions for unlawful detainer and forcible entry must be filed within one (1) year from the date
possession is lost, while accion publiciana may be filed only after the expiration of that period
but within the period prescribed in the statute of limitations. An accion publiciana may only be
filed with the RTC, while a complaint, for unlawful detainer or forcible entry may only be filed
with the first level courts.

Sps Norberte’s cause of action accrued on March 28, 1998. Unfortunately, they filed their
complaint for ejectment only on November 6, 2003. However, the RTC should not have
dismissed the case. Rather, it should have tried it as one for accion publiciana, as if it had
originally been filed with it, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of
Court. It likewise failed to state any findings of facts and conclusions of law on which it based its
affirmance of the MeTC Decision.

2. Atty. Quimpo should be reprimanded for her failure and refusal to furnish the courts of the
names and addresses of the spouses' legal representatives despite the death of Felicisimo
Mejia on June 23, 2004, and of Elvira Mejia on March 23, 2005. An ejectment case survives the
death of a party and the death of the Spouses Mejia did not extinguish the action for ejectment
instituted against them. That action, not being a purely personal one, survived their deaths and
their heirs can take their place to protect and represent their interests therein

You might also like