Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, [plaintiff] prays for judgment ordering [defendants] to fully surrender their actual and physical possession of the portions of the land to [plaintiff] AND [o]rdering [defendants] to pay . . . costs of the suit.
WHEREFORE, [plaintiff] prays for judgment ordering [defendants] to fully surrender their actual and physical possession of the portions of the land to [plaintiff] AND [o]rdering [defendants] to pay . . . costs of the suit. [Plaintiff] prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable. . . [14] Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land more particularly described as follows: "A parcel of land. . . assessed at [PHP] 68,060.00" . . . . [I]t was discovered that herein defendants have encroached into the property. . . Defendants have been illegally occupying. . . long before the plaintiff acquired the same. The defendants are mere informal settlers. . . Demands have been made. . . to vacate. . . but without any valid and justifiable reason, they refused. . . . . . . WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment be rendered. . . ordering the defendants. . .: a) To vacate. . .; b) To pay attorney's fees. . .; c) To pay. . . moral damages; d) To pay. . . exemplary damages; Such other reliefs are also prayed for. In Macutay , We held that notwithstanding the caption of the complaint, it did not include a prayer for recovery of ownership or annulment of title. Further, We found that the allegations therein indicate that it was essentially an action for recovery of possession, or an accion publiciana . Similarly, the present Complaint does not include a prayer for recovery of ownership or annulment of title. Although respondent alleged in her MR 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 which has jurisdiction over the case, are the allegations in the Complaint, [15] 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 . Jurisprudence has described accion reivindicatoria not only as an action to recover ownership, [16] but also as an action to recover possession as an element of ownership. [17] This latter description has seemingly caused confusion among courts and litigants alike, with some erroneously classifying a complaint as one for accion reivindicatoria where the plaintiff alleges ownership and seeks to recover possession as an element of ownership, even without seeking recovery of ownership or alleging a dispute in his title. The judgment in an accion reivindicatoria determines the ownership of the property and awards possession thereof to the lawful owner. [18] It does not determine the issue of possession alone. Without any allegatio