Facts
After purchasing a parcel of land, Lea Victa-Espinosa (Espinosa) had the same surveyed and found that Spouses Noel and Leny Agullo (Sps. Agullo) had encroached on a portion thereof. The latter refused ot heed her demand to vacate, thus prompting her to file a Complaint for Recovery of Possession before the RTC, praying that they be ordered to vacate and to pay damages. Without issuing a summons, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) summarily dismissed the Complaint, finding it premature since an action for forcible entry may still be filed within one (1) year from the discovery of the dispossession.
Espinosa sought to reconsider the RTC’s decision, arguing that her Complaint was neither for forcible entry nor for unlawful detainer. Neither was it for accion publiciana because it was not filed merely to determine who has the better right of possession, but for accion reivindicatoria since she sought not only to recover ownership but also possession as an attribute thereof. However, this was denied by the RTC.
Upon petition, however, the Court of Appeals (CA), however, set aside the decision of the RTC, stating that Espinosa’s Complaint was for accion reivindicatoria 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 publiciana but only in an accion reivindicatoria.
ISSUE: Was the action filed by Espinosa an action for recovery of ownership and possession, or merely an action for recovery of possession?
Ruling
The action filed by Espinosa is merely an action for recovery of possession, and not of ownership.
The Supreme Court ruled that although Espinosa alleged in her Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC and Petition before the CA that she sought to recover ownership and possession as an attribute thereof, nowhere in her Complaint does she seek recovery of ownership.
What determines the nature of the action, as well as the court that has jurisdiction over the case, are the allegations in the Complaint, not the allegations in a subsequent pleading or motion. Further, contrary to the CA’s ruling, there was no boundary dispute here, and not all cases of encroachment bring the case within the ambit of accion reivindicatoria, as in this case, where recovery of ownership is not sought. Respondent did not even allege that petitioners disputed her title. Hence, there is no reason for the ownership of the property to be conclusively determined through an accion reivindicatoria.
The judgment in an accion reivindicatoria 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. Mere averment or allegation of plaintiff’s ownership, on its own, is not tantamount to seeking recovery of ownership or alleging a dispute as to plaintiff’s ownership.
Even if the plaintiff was aware of the defendants’ claim of title, which was inconsistent with his title, his failure to allege the same in the complaint brought it out of the ambit of an accion reivindicatoria, despite alleging his ownership and despite the defendants’ claim of title later surfacing in the answer. Be that as it may, the Court in an accion publiciana is 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.