Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • TERESITA BONGATO, Petitioner, vs. Spouses SEVERO A. MALVAR and TRINIDAD MALVAR, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Abdul-Hayya Ditongcopun
    15 views2 pages
    Teresita Bongato was accused of unlawfully entering land belonging to Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar and erecting a house. The Malvars filed a complaint for forcible entry. The Municipal Trial Court for Cities (MTCC) ordered Bongato to vacate but she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the MTCC's decision, finding they had jurisdiction despite Bongato's claim the complaint was filed over a year after the alleged entry. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bongato, finding the MTCC lacked jurisdiction because the house pre-dated the alleged entry and the Malvars were aware of it long before, making the complaint invalid as it was filed over one year after the entry.

    Original Description:

    bongato digest

    Original Title

    bongato digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Teresita Bongato was accused of unlawfully entering land belonging to Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar and erecting a house. The Malvars filed a complaint for forcible entry. The Municipal Trial Court for Cities (MTCC) ordered Bongato to vacate but she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the MTCC's decision, finding they had jurisdiction despite Bongato's claim the complaint was filed over a year after the alleged entry. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bongato, finding the MTCC lacked jurisdiction because the house pre-dated the alleged entry and the Malvars were aware of it long before, making the complaint invalid as it was filed over one year after the entry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views2 pages

    TERESITA BONGATO, Petitioner, vs. Spouses SEVERO A. MALVAR and TRINIDAD MALVAR, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Abdul-Hayya Ditongcopun
    Teresita Bongato was accused of unlawfully entering land belonging to Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar and erecting a house. The Malvars filed a complaint for forcible entry. The Municipal Trial Court for Cities (MTCC) ordered Bongato to vacate but she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the MTCC's decision, finding they had jurisdiction despite Bongato's claim the complaint was filed over a year after the alleged entry. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bongato, finding the MTCC lacked jurisdiction because the house pre-dated the alleged entry and the Malvars were aware of it long before, making the complaint invalid as it was filed over one year after the entry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TERESITA BONGATO, petitioner, vs. Spouses SEVERO A. MALVAR and TRINIDAD MALVAR, respondents.

    FACTS:
     Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioner Teresita
    Bongato, alleging that petitioner Bongato unlawfully entered a parcel of land covered by TCT No. RT-
    16200 belonging to the said spouses and erected thereon a house of light materials.
     petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer which the MTCC denied
     the MTCC rendered a decision ordering petitioner to vacate the land in question.
     Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
     respondent Judge issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration ‘only insofar as to determine
    the location of the houses involved in this civil case so that the Court will know whether they are located
    on one and the same lot or a lot different from that involved in the criminal case for Anti-Squatting.
     The decision was affirmed by respondent RTC judge.
     respondent Judge disallowed any extension and warned that if the survey is not made, the court might
    consider the same abandoned and the writ of execution would be issued.
     criminal case for anti-squatting (Crim. Case No. 4659) was filed by private respondents Malvar against
    petitioner Bongato.
     petitioner filed a motion for extension of the March 29, 1994 deadline for the submission of the
    relocation survey and to move the deadline to April 15, 1994, as the engineer concerned, Engr. Lumarda,
    could not conduct his survey during the Holy Week, he being a lay minister and parish council member.
     On April 7, 1994, respondent Judge noted that no survey report was submitted and ordered the record of
    the case returned to the court of origin for disposal.
     The RTC dismissed the case.
     The CA affirmed
     The CA held that the lot referred to in the present controversy was different from that involved in the
    anti-squatting case.
     It further ruled that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) had jurisdiction, and that it did not err in
    rejecting petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss.
     The appellate court reasoned that the MTCC had passed upon the issue of ownership of the property
    merely to determine possession -- an action that did not oust the latter of its jurisdiction.
    ISSUE:
     Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in not finding that the trial court
    lacked jurisdiction since the Complaint was filed beyond the one-year period from date of alleged entry
    HELD:
     The Petition is meritorious.
     Petitioner claims that the MTCC had no jurisdiction, because the Complaint for forcible entry was filed
    only in 1992 or beyond the one-year period provided under the Rules of Civil Procedure
     In   forcible   entry,   one   employs   FISTS   to   deprive   another   physical possession of land or building. 
    Thus, plaintiff must allege and prove prior physical  possession  of  the  property  in  litigation  until 
    deprived  thereof  by defendant.  Sole question for resolution hinges on the physical or
    materialpossession of the property.  Neither a claim of juridical possession nor an averment of ownership
    by the defendant can outrightly prevent the court from   taking   cognizance   of   the   case.     
    Ejectment   cases   proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to
    prove priorpossession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.
     In the present case, the lower court lacked jurisdiction in this case.  First, the house of petitioner was
    actually situated in the lot subject of the anti-squatting case and not  on the lot of the  spouses. Second,
    the house has been  in  existence  prior  to  the  alleged  date  of  forcible  entry.    Third,  the respondents
    had knowledge of the existence of the house long before the alleged date of entry.
     Forcible  entry  is  a  quieting  process,  and  that  the  restrictive  time  bar  is prescribed to complement
    the summary nature of the process.  Indeed, the one-year  period  within  which  to  bring  an  action  for 
    forcible  entry  is generally  counted  from  the  date  of  actual  entry  to  the  land.    However, when
    entry is made through stealth,  then the one-year period is counted from  the  time  plaintiff  knew 
    about  it.    after  the  lapse  of  the  one-year period, the party dispossessed of a parcel of land may file
    either an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the right to possession, or an accion
    reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as well as possession. 

    You might also like