BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
SPOUSES NOEL M. AGULLO AND LENNY, ET AL. VS. LEA VICTA-ESPINOSA, G.R. NO. 269921 (APRIL 22, 2025): ACCION PUBLICIANA MAY BE FILED NOT ONLY WHEN THE DISPOSSESSION OF PROPERTY LASTED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR BUT ALSO FOR THOSE WHICH LASTED FOR ONE YEAR OR LESS BUT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF DEPRIVATION OF POSSESSION BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT, STRATEGY OR STEALTH
Respondent purchased a parcel of land and had it surveyed. After the survey, it was found out that petitioner Spouses Noel and Lenny Agullo encroached on a portion thereof. Refusing to heed to demand to vacate the same, respondent filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession before the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte praying that petitioner Spouses Agullo be ordered to vacate and pay damages. The Regional Trial Court of Daet dismissed the case for being premature since an action for Forcible Entry may still be filed.
Upon denial of her motion for reconsideration, the respondent elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the trial court’s order and directed the same to resolve the case on the merits. It found that the case was an accion reinvindicatoria because she sought to recover full possession of the property as an element of ownership. It also ruled that a boundary dispute or encroachment cannot be settled summarily in an accion interdictal or accion publiciana but in an accion reinvindicatoria. Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration, petitioner Spouses Agullo elevated the matter before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court clarified that the case is not one for accion reinvindicatoria since the said action determines the ownership of the property and awards possession thereof to the lawful owner. It does not determine the issue of possession alone. Without any allegation in the complaint that defendant disputes plaintiff’s ownership, as in this case there is no ownership for the court to conclusively determine. The Court held that mere averment or allegation of plaintiff’s ownership, on its own, is not tantamount to seeking recovery of ownership of alleging dispute as to plaintiff’s ownership.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the case is one for accion publiciana or the determination of who has the better right of possession. The Court restated that in an accion publiciana, the courts are not precluded from determining the issue on ownership that arose out of the answer, albeit only provisionally and for the sole purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The Supreme Court also held that a complaint for accion publiciana may also be filed even if the dispossession lasted for one year or less in cases other than those mentioned in Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, i.e., when there is no allegation of deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Hence, the Court ruled that case is one for accion publiciana and directed the trial court to resolve the case on the merits with reasonable dispatch.