Encarnacion vs Amigo

1. Petitioner Encarnacion was the registered owner of a property located in Isabela by

virtue of the waiver of rights executed by his mother-in-law on 1995.
2. Respondent Amigo allegedly entered the premises on 1985 and took possession of a
portion of the property without the permission of the then owner.
3. Hence, a letter demanding Amigo to vacate the property was sent by Encarnacion on
February 1, 2001, and it was received by the respondent on February 12, 2001.
4. The demand remained unheeded hence Encarnacion filed a complaint for ejectment
which is a summary action for recovery of physical possession where the
dispossession has not lasted for more than one year. (either unlawful detainer or
forcible entry)
5. The MTC rendered decision in favor of Encarnacion.
6. On appeal, RTC dismissed the case on the ground that MTC had no jurisdiction over
the case.
7. Encarnacion then filed a petitioner for review under Rule 42 before the CA which
remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings. CA held that the proper action
is accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer based on the allegations in the
complaint filed by the petitioner.
Issues: WON the RTC should have taken cognizance of the case?
Held: Yes, it is a case of accion publiciana. It is true that the demand letter was received
by the respondent on February 12, 2001, thereby making the filing of the complaint for
ejectment fall within the one year from last demand, but respondent Amigos actual
entry on the land was in 1985 or sixteen years after, when Encarnacion filed his
ejectment case.
The respondent should have filed an accion publiciana case which is under the
jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the RTC should have not dismissed the case; it should
have taken cognizance of the case.
According to Section 8, Rule 40 of ROC, if the case is tried on the merits by the Municipal
Court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal may no longer
dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof and the RTC shall no longer try the
case on the merits, but shall decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented in
the lower court, without prejudice to the admission of the amended pleadings and
additional evidence in the interest of justice

Additional Information:
Unlawful Detainer - an action to recover possession of real property which should be
brought to MTC from one who illegally withholds possession of a property which must be
brought within one year from the date of last demand

Accion Publiciana - action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in
the proper RTC when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary
civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of
title
Canlas vs Tubil
1. Tubil was the owner of a residential lot in Pampanga.
2. Rudy, Victoria and Felicidad Canlas erected a house on the aforementioned lot and
occupied it as their residential house upon mere tolerance by the Tubild.
3. Later, Tubil now wanted to use the land fruitfully so demands were made to vacate
the lot.
4. Canlas refused so a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by Tubil before the MTC.
5. Canlas filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the MTC was without jurisdiction
over the subject matter and that the parties were not the real parties-in-interest.
6. The MTC denied the Motion to Dismiss.
7. Canlas then filed an answer stating that they were in open, continuous, and exclusive
possession of the land; that Tubils title over the land issued by a Free Patent was
dubious; that the action was actually accion publiciana which is beyond MTCs
jurisdiction.
8. MTC dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer on the grounds that Tubil failed to
show that there was mere tolerance. RTC affirmed the decision of MTC.
9. Respondent files a petition for review with the CA which reversed the MTCs decision
and ordered the RTC to decide on the merits of the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rule 40, Section 8 is applicable in this case.

HELD: NO. Rule 40, Sec 8, par 2 states that If the case was tried on the merits by the
lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal shall not
dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction BUT shall decide the case without prejudice
to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence
The SC held that the case was of unlawful detainer to which the MTC has original
jurisdiction over the subject matter, not accion publiciana where the RTC has original
jurisdiction.
Having ruled that the MTC acquired jurisdiction, it properly exercised its discretion in
dismissing the complaint for failure of the respondent to prove mere tolerance by
sufficient evidence. Rule 40, Section 8 of the RoC has no application in this case.

RICARDO S. SILVERIO Jr. vs. CA

1. Beatriz Silverio died. Her surviving spouse, Ricardo Silverio Sr., filed an intestate
proceeding for the settlement of her estate.2. During the pendency of the case in RTC, Ricardo Silverio Jr. filed a petition to remove
Ricardo Sr. as the administrator of the estate.
3. On January 2003, RTC granted the petition and removed Silverio Sr. as administrator
of the estate, while appointing Silverio Jr. as the new administrator.
4. Nelia S. Silverio-Dee, as well as others, filed a Motion for Reconsideration
5. Subsequently, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order affirming its Order dated January 3,
2005 and denying private respondents MR. In the Omnibus Order:
a. The RTC authorized Ricardo Silverio, Jr. to immediately exercise his duties as
administrator of the subject estate.
b. Also directed Nelia S. Silverio-Dee to vacate the property at Forbes Park, Makati
City within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order.
6. Nelia received a copy of the said Order on June 8, 2005. She filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied.
7. The MR was denied by RTC.
8. Nelia filed her Notice of Appeal on the order denying the MR.
9. RTC denied the appeal stating that Nelia Silverio-Dees appeal was against an order
denying a Motion for Reconsideration which is disallowed under Sec. 1 (a), Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court.
Issues: WON the Order denying the MR is an Interlocutory Order which is not subject to
appeal?
Held: Yes. The order denying the Motion for Reconsideration is an interlocutory order
which is not subject to appeal.
According to Rule 41, Section 1. An appeal may be taken from a judgment or
final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
xxxx
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
Instead of filing a notice of appeal in the order denying the motion for reconsideration,
the respondent should have filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court instead.
(Another remedy is appeal on the final decision or order and not on the order
denying the MR)

Additional information: With regard to the Omnibus order, it is also an interlocutory order
because it does not dispose of the case completely, therefore it is not subject to appeal. The
authority given by Silverio SR. to Nelia is null and void since the possession of estate property
can only be given to the heir by virtue of an Order from this Court. In the instant case, Omnibus
Order of the RTC that ordered Nelia to vacate the premises of the property located at Forbes
Park, Makati City is not a final determination of the case or of the issue of distribution of the
shares of the heirs. It must be borne in mind that until the estate is partitioned, each heir only
has an inchoate right to the properties of the estate, such that no heir may lay claim on a
particular property.