FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 234655, September 11, 2019
JESSICA LIO MARTINEZ, PETITIONER, v. HEIRS OF REMBERTO F. LIM, RESPONDENTS
BERSAMIN, C.J.:
NATURE OF ACTION: A motion for reconsideration arguing that the CA had grossly erred in refusing to
acknowledge and recognize her Torrens titles as proof of her superior right to the possession of the
disputed portion.
FACTS: Respondents are the heirs of Remberto Lim who, during his lifetime, owned, possessed, and
cultivated a parcel of land located in Coron, Palawan, designated as Assessor's Lot 065 and covered by
Tax Declaration No. 006-0515-A. Adjoining Remberto's land is the land of his brother - Jose Lim -
registered under OCT No. E-9487 with an area of 28,006 sqm. Per the technical description in said title,
the property is bounded on both the east and west by the properties of the Heirs of Socorro Lim, which
were later on acquired by the late Remberto Lim.
As it happened, Jose sold his land covered by OCT No. E-9487 to a certain Dorothy and Alexander
Medalla who, thereafter, subdivided the same into two (2) smaller lots, designated as Lots 1 and 2. Lot 2
was further subdivided into nine (9) smaller lots, this time designated as Lots 2-A to 2-1, inclusive. Lots
2-D, 2-E and 2-F were thereafter sold to herein petitioner Martinez, pursuant to three (3) separate
Deeds of Absolute Sale, and by virtue thereof, petitioner Martinez was issued TCT in her favor.
On 10 August 2010, petitioner Martinez and her father entered into the property and uprooted some of
the acacia mangium trees that were previously planted thereon by the late Remberto Lim and his son,
Alan Lim. To further delineate their claimed property, petitioner fenced the same and placed signs
thereon that read "NO TRESPASSING" and "NOTICE THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE MARTINEZ
FAMILY."
Now then, claiming that petitioner had unlawfully encroached into a portion of their property,
respondents, through counsel, sent a demand letter to petitioner demanding that she immediately
remove the fence that she built on respondents' land as well as to turn over peaceful possession of
that portion of property that petitioner intruded into. Unfortunately, the demand was ignored by
petitioner, and respondents were constrained to file the instant complaint for Forcible Entry with
Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction against petitioner before the MCTC.
The MCTC ordered petitioner, among others, to vacate and turn over peaceful possession of the
disputed portion of property. On appeal by petitioner, the RTC affirmed in toto the disposition of the
MCTC. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof, but to no avail. The petitioner timely
filed an appeal. The CA denied the Petition for Review. It ruled that the respondents had the better right
of possession over the disputed portion on account of priority in time considering the following
documents submitted as evidence by the respondents: (1) tax declarations in the name of Remberto
Lim; (2) a Tree Plantation Record Form; and (3) the memorandum issued by the City Environment and
Natural Resources Office CENRO of Coron, Palawan certifying that acacia mangium trees and mahogany
species were planted by Remberto's son, Allan Lim.
The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for its failure to sufficiently show that the CA had
committed any reversible error in promulgating the assailed decision and resolution as to warrant the
exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Undaunted, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the CA had grossly erred in
refusing to acknowledge and recognize her Torrens titles as proof of her superior right to the
possession of the disputed portion. The respondents submit in their comment that the land covered by
TD No. 006-0515-A had been included in the titles issued to the petitioner who was consequently
illegally and unlawfully occupying the same; that they were still the lawful owners of the land illegally
and unlawfully included in the titles of the petitioner; and that they had the better and superior rights of
possession over the land covered by TD No. 006-0515-A.
ISSUES: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT'S PARTICULAR
FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS SUPPOSEDLY HAVE A BETTER AND/OR SUPERIOR RIGHT OF POSSESSION
OVER THE CONTESTED PROPERTIES, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF
OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES IS SUPPORTED BY A TORRENS TITLE TO HER NAME;
RULING: We find merit in the appeal.
Preliminarily, this Court discusses and distinguishes the three types of possessory actions sanctioned in
this jurisdiction, namely; accion interdictal, accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria.
Accion interdictal is a summary action that seeks the recovery of physical possession where the
dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and is to be exclusively brought in the proper
inferior court.10 The issue involved is material possession or possession de facto. The action is either
forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (deshhucio). In forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived
of physical possession of real property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth, but
in unlawful detainer, the defendant illegally withholds possession of real property after the expiration or
termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.
The jurisdiction over these two summary actions lies in the proper Municipal Trial Court of the
municipality or city within whose territory the property in dispute is located.
Accion publiciana is the second possessory action. It is a plenary action to recover the right of
possession,15 and the issue is which party has the better right of possession (possession de jure).16 It
can be filed when the dispossession lasted for more than one year.
The objective of the plaintiff in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.18
The last possessory action is accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion. It is an action whereby
the plaintiff alleges ownership of the parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. The issue
involved in and determined through accion reivindicatoria is the recovery of ownership of real property.
This action can be filed when the dispossession lasted for more than one year.
What the MCTC should have quickly seen was that the dispute did not concern mere possession of the
area in litis but the supposed encroachment by the petitioner on the portion of the respondents. In
other words, the question focused on whether the property being claimed and occupied by the
petitioner had really been part of her registered properties, or of the respondents' property.31 The
proper resolution of such dispute in favor of the respondents could be had only after a hearing in
which the trial court was enabled through preponderant proof showing that, indeed, the disputed
area was not within the metes and bounds appearing and stated in the TCTs of the petitioner.
We reiterate that a boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily through the action for forcible entry
covered by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal
from the very beginning, and the issue centers on which between the plaintiff and the defendant had
the prior possession de facto. If the petitioner had possession of the disputed areas by virtue of the
same being covered by the metes and bounds stated and defined in her Torrens titles, then she might
not be validly dispossessed thereof through the action for forcible entry. The dispute should be
properly threshed out only through accion reivindicatoria. Accordingly, the MCTC acted without
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and resolving the dispute as one for forcible entry.
Given the foregoing, the CA committed reversible error in affirming the judgments of the lower courts,
and in ordering the summary ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed area. Considering that the
remedy availed of by the respondents as the plaintiffs was improper, the Court need not discuss and
settle the other issues raised by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
decision by the Court of Appeals; DISMISSES the complaint for forcible entry without prejudice to the
filing of the proper action; and ORDERS the respondents to pay the costs of suit.
