G.R. No. 186375 - ELENA ALCEDO, VS. SPS. JESUS SAGUDANG AND MARLENE PADUA-SAGUDANG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this [c]ourt finds no reversible error in the Decision of the [c]ourt a quo and hereby AFFIRMS the same in toto. [8] Respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which reversed the RTCs decision and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the MCTC does not have jurisdiction over the case which is essentially a boundary dispute, thus jurisdiction pertains to the RTC. The Court of Appeals disposed, thus: WHEREFORE , premises considered, both lower courts decision are hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is entered DISMISSING the Complaint for Forcible Entry docketed as Civil Case No. S-922 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. [9] Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution [10] dated 27 January 2009. Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition assigning the following errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY; and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS A BOUNDARY DISPUTE WHICH SHOULD EITHER BE AN ACCION PUBLICIANA OR AN ACCION REINVINDICATORIA. [11] Petitioner principally argues that the complaint is in the nature of an action for forcible entry over which the MCTC had jurisdiction. Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the Court, as well as the nature of the action, are determined by the allegations in the complaint. [12] Section 1, Rule 70 [13] of the Rules of Court requires that in actions for forcible entry, the plaintiff is allegedly deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and that the action is filed any time within one year from the time of such unlawful deprivation of possession. This requirement implies that in such cases, the possession of the land by the defendant is unlawful from the beginning as he acquires possession thereof by unlawful means. The plaintiff must allege and prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant. If the alleged dispossession did not occur by any of the means stated in section 1, Rule 70 either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, the proper recourse is to file a plenary action to recover possession with the RTC. [14] We reproduce the pertinent allegations in the complaint before the MCTC: 9. That x x x the said property was sold to the [petitioner] in 1995 and 2003 as shown on the unnotarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 22, 1995 and unnotarized Affidavit of Self Adjudication of Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2003 x x x; x x x x x x x x x 12. That since 1980s, the plaintiff has been in possession over the subject land without any interference or claim by other person when she started to accept the mortgage unto her. She has been so