Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Supapo vs. Sps. de Jesus, GR No. 198356

    Uploaded by

    Caleb Josh Pacana
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) properly acquired jurisdiction over the case because the property in dispute was valued at less than P50,000 and located in Metro Manila. 2) The action was not barred by prescription because registered lands cannot be acquired through prescription or adverse possession under the Torrens system. 3) The complaint for accion publiciana was not barred by res judicata because the prior criminal case involved different parties, subject matters, and causes of action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Supapo vs. Sps. de Jesus, GR No. 198356

    Uploaded by

    Caleb Josh Pacana
    26 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) properly acquired jurisdiction over the case because the property in dispute was valued at less than P50,000 and located in Metro Manila. 2) The action was not barred by prescription because registered lands cannot be acquired through prescription or adverse possession under the Torrens system. 3) The complaint for accion publiciana was not barred by res judicata because the prior criminal case involved different parties, subject matters, and causes of action.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    4. Supapo vs. Sps. De Jesus, GR No. 198356

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) properly acquired jurisdiction over the case because the property in dispute was valued at less than P50,000 and located in Metro Manila. 2) The action was not barred by prescription because registered lands cannot be acquired through prescription or adverse possession under the Torrens system. 3) The complaint for accion publiciana was not barred by res judicata because the prior criminal case involved different parties, subject matters, and causes of action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views3 pages

    Supapo vs. Sps. de Jesus, GR No. 198356

    Uploaded by

    Caleb Josh Pacana
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) properly acquired jurisdiction over the case because the property in dispute was valued at less than P50,000 and located in Metro Manila. 2) The action was not barred by prescription because registered lands cannot be acquired through prescription or adverse possession under the Torrens system. 3) The complaint for accion publiciana was not barred by res judicata because the prior criminal case involved different parties, subject matters, and causes of action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    4. SUPAPO VS SPS.

    DE JESUS

    G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015

    Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts

    Ponente: Brion;

    Facts:

    Spouses Supapo owned a parcel of land in Quezon City valued at Php39,980 (according to the
    Declaration of Real Property Value or tax declaration). The spouses do not reside in the lot, but they visit
    it at least twice a year.

    In 1992, they discovered that there were 2 houses built therein. It was without their consent or
    knowledge. They filed a criminal case against the Spouses de Jesus and Macario, who were the owners
    of the houses. They filed this under PD 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law. While the case was pending,
    however, Congress enacted RA 8368 “An Act Repealing PD 772”.

    Thus, the criminal case was dismissed.

    The dismissal became final in 1999. Even though the dismissal became final, the Spouses Supapo moved
    for the execution of the respondents’ civil liability.

    The RTC granted the motion.

    But the CA reversed the RTC, saying that with the repeal of the Anti-Squatting Law, the respondents’
    criminal and civil liabilities were extinguished.

    Thereafter, the Spouses Supapo filed a complaint for accion publiciana. Respondents contended they
    could not do this because there is another action pending between the same parties, the complaint for
    accion publiciana is barred by the statute of limitations and Spouses Supapo’s cause of action is barred
    by prior judgment

    MeTC ruled against respondents.

    The RTC agreed with respondents on two grounds:

    The action has prescribed

    Accion publiciana falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC

    It held that in an action where the only issue is possession, the MeTC has jurisdiction is the action for
    forcible entry or unlawful detainer is filed within 1 year from the time to demand to vacate was made.
    Otherwise, it should be filed before the RTC.

    It held that the action was filed beyond the 10-year prescriptive period under Art 555 of the Civil Code.

    Issues:
    Whether the MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction?

    Has the action prescribed?

    Is the complaint for accion publiciana barred by res judicata?

    Ruling:

    Yes. Under BP 129, the jurisdiction of the RTC over actions involving title to or possession of real
    property is plenary.

    RA No. 7691 divested the RTC of a portion of its jurisdiction and granted the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
    Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear
    actions where the assessed value of the property does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00),
    or Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), if the property is located in Metro Manila.

    Remember that the property in this case is valued at Php39,980 and is located in Quezon City, which is a
    part of Metro Manila.

    Thus, the MeTC acquired jurisdiction here contrary to what the RTC said.

    No.

    In a long line of cases, we have consistently ruled that lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by
    prescription or adverse possession. We have also held that a claim of acquisitive prescription is baseless
    when the land involved is a registered land because of Article 1126 of the Civil Code in relation to Act
    496 [now, Section 47 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 152950].

    The Spouses Supapo (as holders of the TCT) enjoy a panoply of benefits under the Torrens system. The
    most essential insofar as the present case is concerned is Section 47 of PD No. 1529 which states:

    Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to registered land in derogation of the
    title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

    In addition to the imprescriptibility, the person who holds a Torrens Title over a land is also entitled to
    the possession thereof.

    With respect to laches

    The ground on laches is evidentiary in nature and cannot be established by mere allegations in the
    pleadings.60 In other words, the party alleging laches must adduce in court evidence proving such
    allegation. This Court not being a trier of facts cannot rule on this issue; especially so since the lower
    courts did not pass upon the same.

    No.

    Res judicata embraces two concepts:

    A. bar by prior judgment

    Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure


    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.

    B. conclusiveness of judgment

    Rule 39, Section 47(c)

    Elements of Res Judicata (Bar by Prior Judgment)

    The former judgment or order must be final.

    It must be a judgment on the merits.

    It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.

    There must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of
    action.

    In this case, requisites 1 to 3 are present, but the fourth is not.

    Why?

    There is no identity of parties.

    The party in the criminal case is the People of the Philippines. The party in the present case is the
    Spouses Supapo.

    There is no identity of subject matter.

    The criminal case involves the prosecution of a crime under the Anti-Squatting Law while the accion
    publiciana is an action to recover possession of the subject property.

    There is 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. The Spouses Supapo filed the accion publiciana to protect
    their proprietary interests over the subject property and recover its possession.

    You might also like