Supapo v.
De Jesus
G.R. No. 198356 | April 20, 2015
Brion, J.
Topic: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Petitioners: ESPERANZA SUPAPO AND THE HEIRS OF ROMEO SUPAPO,
NAMELY: ESPERANZA, REX EDWARD, RONALD TROY, ROMEO, JR.,
SHEILA LORENCE, ALL SURNAMED SUPAPO, AND SHERYL FORTUNE
SUPAPO-SANDIGAN
Respondents: SPOUSES ROBERTO AND SUSAN DE JESUS, MACARIO
BERNARDO, AND THOSE PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM
Facts:
 Sps Supapo filed a complaint for accion publiciana against Sps De Jesus,
Macario Bernardo, and persons claiming rights under them with the MeTC of
Caloocan City
o Sps Supapo sought to compel resps to vacate a piece of land in
Novaliches, QC, covered by TCT registered and titled under the Sps
Supapos’ names; assessed value of land: P39,980 as shown in the tax
declaration issued by the Office of the City Assessor of Caloocan
 Sps Supapo did not reside on the subject lot and did not employ an overseer but
they made sure to visit at least twice a year
o 1992: they saw 2 houses built on the lot; such were built without their
knowledge and permission and they later learned that the Sps de Jesus
occupied one house while Macario occupied the other
 Sps Supapo then demanded from resps immediate surrender of the subject lot by
bringing the dispute before the appropriate Lupong Tagapamayapa
o Lupon: issued a Katibayan Upang Makadulog sa Hukuman (certificate
to file action) for failure of the parties to settle amicably
 Sps Supapo then filed a criminal case against resps for violation of PD No. 772
or the Anti-Squatting Law
o TC: convicted resps; each accused ordered to pay a fine of P1,000 and
to vacate the subject premises
 Resps appealed to CA and while such was pending, Congress enacted RA 8368
(An Act Repealing Presidential Decree No. 772) which resulted to the dismissal
of the criminal case
o April 30, 1999: CA's dismissal of the criminal case became final
 Despite the dismissal, Sps Supapo moved for the execution of the respondents'
civil liability, praying that the latter vacate the subject lot
o RTC: granted the motion and issued the writ of execution
 Resps moved for quashal of the writ
o RTC: denied motion, also the MR later
 Resps then filed petition for certiorari with CA
o CA: granted the petition; held that with the repeal of the Anti-Squatting
Law, the resps' criminal and civil liabilities were extinguished
 However, CA underscored that the repeal of the Anti-
Squatting Law does not mean that people now have unbridled
license to illegally occupy lands they do not own and that it
was not intended to compromise the property rights of
legitimate landowners. In cases of violation of their property
rights, the recourse may be had in court by filing the proper
action for recovery of possession.
 Sps Supapo then filed this complaint for action publiciana
 Resps, after filing their Answer, moved to set their affirmative defenses for
preliminary hearing and argued that: (1) there is another action pending between
the same parties; (2) the complaint for accion publiciana is barred by statute of
limitations; and (3) the Spouses Supapo's cause of action is barred by prior
judgment
 MeTC: denied motion to set the affirmative defenses for preliminary hearing;
also denied MR
 RTC: granted petition for certiorari on two grounds: (i) the action has
prescribed; and (ii) accion publiciana falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RTC
o In cases where the only issue involved is possession, MeTC has
jurisdiction if the action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer is filed
within 1 year from the time to demand to vacate was made, otherwise,
the complaint for recovery of possession should be filed before the
RTC
 Sps Supapos’ MR: they emphasized that the court's jurisdiction over an action
involving title to or possession of land is determined by its assessed value; RTC
does not have an exclusive jurisdiction on all complaints for accion publiciana;
the assessed value of the subject lot falls within MeTC's jurisdiction
o MR denied; although MeTC had jurisdiction based on the assessed
value of the lot, Sps Supapos' cause of action already prescribed bc
filed beyond the l0-year prescriptive period under Art. 555, CC
 Since not proven when actual demand to vacate was made,
reckoning period by which the ejectment suit should have
been filed is counted from the time the certificate to file action
was issued (Nov 25, 1992) while the complaint for accion
publiciana was filed only on March 7, 2008
 CA: dismissed appeal; the complaint for accion publiciana should have been
lodged before the RTC and the period to file the action prescribed
o MR denied
 Thus, this case
Issue/s:
1. W/N MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction – YES
2. W/N cause of action has prescribed – NO
3. W/N complaint for accion publiciana is barred by res judicata – NO
Judgment:
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition, and
consequently REVERSE and SET ASIDE the February 25, 2011 decision and
August 25, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111674.
Ratio:
1. MeTC has jurisdiction
 Accion publiciana: an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better
right of possession of realty independent of title; it refers to an ejectment suit
filed after the expiration of 1 year from the accrual of the cause of action or from
the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty
 HERE, Sps Supapo filed an action for the recovery of possession of the
subject lot but they based their better right of possession on a claim of
ownership
 SC has held that the objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to
recover possession only, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the
issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who
between the parties has the right to possess the property
o Such adjudication is not a final determination of the issue of
ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of
possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the
issue of possession
o The adjudication of the issue of ownership, is provisional – not a bar to
an action between the same parties involving title to the property; not
conclusive on issue of ownership
 BP Blg. 129: jurisdiction of RTC over actions involving title to or possession of
real property is plenary
o HOWEVER, RA 7691 divested the RTC of a portion of its
jurisdiction and granted the MeTCs, MTCs, MCTCs the exclusive
and original jurisdiction to hear actions where the assessed value of
the property does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000 if the property is
located in Metro Manila (Secs. 1&3)
o Jurisdiction then over actions involving title to or possession of real
property is now determined by its assessed value which is its fair
market value multiplied by the assessment level (synonymous to
taxable value)
 Such was held by the SC in previous jurisprudence
o The complaint must then allege the assessed value of the real property
subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine which
court has jurisdiction over the action bc the nature of the action and the
court with original and exclusive jurisdiction over it is determined by
the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for
by the plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action is filed,
irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the
claims asserted therein
 HERE, Sps Supapo alleged that the assessed value of the subject lot, located in
Metro Manila, is P39,980, as proven by the tax declaration
o Sps Supapo duly complied with the jurisdictional requirements
thus MeTC of Caloocan properly acquired jurisdiction over the
complaint for accion publiciana
2. Cause of action has not prescribed
 Invoked provision: Art. 555, CC – “A possessor may lose his possession: x x x
(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article 537, if the
new possession has lasted longer than one year. But the real right of possession
is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.
 Sps Supapo: cause of action is imprescriptible since the subject property is
registered and titled under the Torrens system
o SC: Sps Supapos’ position is legally correct
 Sps Supapo acquired the TCT on the subject lot in 1979 and resps do not
challenge the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the TCT
o Resps rest their case on the fact that they have allegedly been in actual,
public, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the subject property in
the concept of an owner since 1992, they built their houses on the lot in
good faith, and having possessed the subject lot for more than 10 years,
they can no longer be disturbed in their possession
 SC: resps' contentions have no legal basis
o Court consistently ruled that lands covered by a title cannot be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession
o Also, a claim of acquisitive prescription is baseless when the land
involved is a registered land because of Article 1126, CC in relation
to Act 496 [now, Section 47 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529]
3. Action not barred by prior judgment
 Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in
Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of
judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c)
 "Bar by prior judgment" means that when a right or fact had already been
judicially tried on the merits and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the final judgment or order shall be conclusive upon the parties and
those in privity with them and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions
involving the same claim, demand or cause of action
o Requisites for res judicata under the concept of bar by prior judgment:
(1) The former judgment or order must be final; (2) It must be a
judgment on the merits; (3) It must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4)
There must be between the first and second actions, identity of
parties, subject matter, and cause of action
 No res judicata bc 4th requisite not met: no identity of parties [crim complaint
prosecuted in the name of the people of the Philippines while accion publiciana
filed by and in the name of Sps Supapo]; no identity of subject matter [crim case
involves prosecution of a crime under the Anti-Squatting Law while the accion
publiciana is an action to recover possession]; no identity of causes of action
[The people of the Philippines filed the criminal case to protect and preserve
governmental interests by prosecuting persons who violated the statute while
Sps Supapo filed the accion publiciana to protect their proprietary interests over
the subject property and recover its possession]