9/6/2016

G.R.No.219811

TodayisTuesday,September06,2016

SECONDDIVISION
April6,2016
G.R.No.219811
REXDACLISON,Petitioner,
vs.
EDUARDOBAYTION,Respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:
Assailedinthispetitionforreview 1aretheFebruary5,2015Decision2andtheAugust3,2015Resolution3ofthe
CourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.99627,whichaffirmedintototheApril27,2012Decision 4renderedby
theRegionalTrialCourt,Branch224,QuezonCity(RTC)inCivilCaseNo.Q0966145,acaseforforcibleentry.
TheAntecedents
OnJanuary27,2009,respondentEduardoBaytion(Baytion)filedaComplaint5forForcibleEntryandDamages
withPrayerforIssuanceofPreliminaryMandatoryInjunctionwiththeMetropolitanTrialCourt,Branch43,Quezon
City(MeTC)againstpetitionerRexDaclison(Daclison),whichwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.39225.
Inthecomplaint,Baytionallegedthathewasacoownerofaparceloflandconsistingof1,500squaremeters,
coveredbyTransferCertificateTitle(TCT)No.221507.Thesaidpropertywasinheritedbyhimandhissiblings
fromtheirparentsand,asagreedupon,wasbeingadministeredbyhim.Asadministrator,heleasedportionsof
thepropertytothirdpersons.
Erected on the said property was a onestorey building which was divided into seven units or stalls. One of the
stallswasleasedtoacertainLeonidaDelaCruz(Leonida)whouseditforherbusinessofsellingrocks,pebbles
andsimilarconstructionmaterials.
When the lease of Nida expired sometime in May 2008, Daclison and other persons acting under her took
possession of the portion leased and occupied by Leonida without the prior knowledge and consent of Baytion.
Sincethen,Daclisonhadbeenoccupyingthecontestedportionandusingitforhisbusinessofsellingmarbleand
otherfinishingmaterialswithoutpayinganythingtoBaytion.
UponlearningofDaclisonsunauthorizedentryintothesubjectportionoftheproperty,sometimeinJune2008,
Baytiondemandedthathevacateit.Despiteoralandwrittendemandstovacate,Daclisonrefusedtodoso.This
promptedBaytiontofilethecomplaintforforcibleentryanddamages.
Daclison,inhisanswer,averredthatsometimein1978,BaytionleasedthesubjectportiontoAntoniodelaCruz
(Antonio)wherethelatterstartedabusinessthattenorfifteenyearslater,astonewalling,calledariprap,was
erected at the creek lying beside Baytions property, leaving a deep downsloping area that Antonio negotiated
with a certain engineer so he could be in possession of the said downslope that Antonio had the downslope
filled up until it was leveled with the leased portion that Antonio paid for the right to possess the same that in
2000, Antonios business was taken over by Leonida, who suffered a stroke in December 2007 that after her
death,thebusinesswastakenoverbyErnanieDelaCruz(Ernanie)thatinFebruary2008,he(Daclison)entered
into a business venture with Ernanie in the same leased property and he took over the management of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_219811_2016.html

1/5

9/6/2016

G.R.No.219811

businessthathereceivedaletterfromBaytionaddressedtoErnanierequestingthelattertovacatethesubject
premisesthatBaytionandErnaniecametoanagreementthatthelatterwouldcontinuetheleaseoftheproperty
thatheissuedacheckintheamountof100,000.00aspaymentfortherentalarrearsthattwoweeksthereafter,
BaytionreturnedthecheckanddemandedthatErnanievacatethepropertythatBaytionpromisedthathewould
nolongerbotherthemiftheywouldjusttransfertothefilledupandplaneleveledpropertythatonaccountofthe
saidpromise,heandErnanievacatedtheleasedareaandtransferredtheirbusinesstothefilledupportionthat
despitethefactthattheyalreadyvacatedtheleasedportionoftheproperty,Baytionstillfiledacomplaintwiththe
barangayclaimingthatthefilledupportionwaspartofhispropertythattheexecutiveofficerofthebarangaywho
conductedtheinvestigationmadeareportindicatingthatamojonwasplacedbyhim(Daclison)whichshowedthe
boundary of Baytions property that Baytion acknowledged the said report and agreed to put an end to the
controversy and that despite Baytions agreement to put an end to the dispute, he still sent a demand letter to
vacate.6
OnAugust25,2009,theMeTCdismissedthecaseonthegroundthatBaytionfailedtoincludehissiblingsorhis
coowners,asplaintiffsinthecase.Thedismissal,however,waswithoutprejudice.
BaytionappealedthecasetotheRTC,whichruledthattheMeTClackedjurisdictiontodecidethecasebecause
theallegationsinthecomplaintfailedtoconstituteacaseofforcibleentry.PursuanttoSection8,Rule40ofthe
RulesofCourt,however,theRTCdidnotdismissthecaseand,instead,exerciseditsoriginaljurisdictionoverthe
same.
TheRTCthendecidedthatBaytionhadabetterrightofpossessionovertheproperty.Thedispositiveportionof
itsdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedordering:
1)Thedefendantandotherpersonsclaimingunderhimtovacateandtoturnoverthepossessionofthe
subjectpropertytotheplaintiffand,
2) The defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of 20,000.00/monthly for the use of the premises
commencingfromMay2008untilthesubjectpremisesisvacated.
SOORDERED.7
Aggrieved,DaclisonfiledanappealwiththeCA.
TheCAtackledtwoissues,namely:a)whethertheRTCcommittedareversibleerrorwhenitexercisedoriginal
jurisdictionofthecaseanddecidedthesameonitsmeritspursuanttoSection8,Rule40oftheRulesofCourt
and,b)who,betweenBaytionandDaclison,hadabetterrighttopossessthesubjectproperty.
TheCAruledthattheMeTChadnojurisdictiontohearanddecidethecaseinasummaryproceedingforforcible
entry because Baytion failed to allege that he was in prior physical possession of the property and that he was
deprived of his possession under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. It was of the view that the
present action for forcible entry had actually ripened into one for recovery of the right to possess or accion
publiciana,whichwasanactioninanordinarycivilproceedingintheRegionalTrialCourt.Theactionwasaimed
at determining who among the parties had a better right of possession of realty independent of the issue of
ownershiportitle.Itwasanejectmentsuitfiledaftertheexpirationofoneyearfromtheaccrualofthecauseof
actionorfromtheunlawfulwithholdingofpossessionoftherealty.8Thus,itagreedwiththeRTCwhenthelatter
correctlyassumedjurisdictionoverthecasefollowingthemandateofSection8,Rule40oftheRevisedRulesof
Court.9
Astotheissueofpossession,theCAconcludedthatBaytion,ascoownerofthesubjectproperty,hadabetter
righttopossess.Itwrote:
Xxx,itisclearthatAntonio,LeonidaandErnaniewerealllesseesofthesubjectpropertyanditsimprovements
owned by the plaintiff. Ernanie, who is a sublessee of the subject property, again subleased the same to
appellant, without authority or consent from appellee. Thus, since appellant have been possessing the subject
propertyinhiscapacityasameresublessee,hecannotownthesubjectpropertyanditsimprovementsthrough
open,continuousandadversepossessionoftheproperty.Itfollowsthenthatappelleehastherighttorepossess
thesubjectproperty.10
OnFebruary5,2015,theCArenderedtheassaileddecision,disposinginthiswise:
WHEREFORE,theinstantappealisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit,andtheDecision27April2012rendered
byBranch224oftheRTCofQuezonCityinCivilCaseNo.Q0966145isAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.11
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_219811_2016.html

2/5

9/6/2016

G.R.No.219811

DaclisonfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutitwasdeniedbytheCAintheassailedresolution.
Hence,thepresentpetitionforreviewraisingthefollowing
ISSUES
I.
THEHONORABLECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDWHENITHELDTHATTHEINSTANTCASE
ISANACCIONPUBLICIANA,MORESIGNIFICANTLY[WITH]RESPECTTOTHELANDOUTSIDE
TCT NO. 221507 THAT, EFFECTIVELY, THE RESPONDENT HAS PRIOR POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTYOUTSIDETCTNO.221507.
II.
THEHONORABLECOURTAQUOGRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT
THEPETITIONERWASALESSEEOFTHESECONDPROPERTY
III.
THEHONORABLECOURTAQUOGRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT
THE SECOND PROPERTY OR LAND WAS AN UMPROVEMENT ON THE PROPERTY OF THE
RESPONDENT.
IV.
THEHONORABLECOURTAQUOGRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT
THERESPONDENTHASLEGALCAPACITYTOSUE.
V.
THEHONORABLECOURTAQUOGRAVELY ERRED UNDER THE LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT
THEPETITIONERSHOULDPAYTHE[RESPONDENT]THEAMOUNTOF20,000MONTHLYFOR
THEUSEOFTHEPREMISES.12
Daclisoninsiststhatwhatisreallyindisputeinthepresentcontroversyisthefilledupportionbetweentheriprap
constructed by the government and the property of Baytion and,13 therefore, outside of the land coowned by
Baytion. Accordingly, the RTC and the CA should have dismissed the case because the leased property was
alreadysurrenderedtoitsowner,thereby,mootingthecomplaint.14
Daclison insists that Antonio, from whom he derived his right over the contested portion, made an open,
continuousandadversepossessionanduseofthepropertywhenthelatterextendedhisplaceofbusinesstothe
filledupportion.15Heclaimsthatthefilledupportionisnotanimprovementontheleasedpropertyasfoundby
theRTCandthecourtaquo.Itisapropertyseparateanddistinctfromtheleasedproperty.16
TheRespondentsPosition
Baytion basically posits that although the disputed portion is outside the description of the property covered by
TCTNo.221507,itformsanintegralpartofthelatterbecauseitisanaccretion,construction,orimprovementon
thepropertyand,underthelaw,anyaccretionoranythingbuiltthereonbelongstohimandhiscoowners.17
TheCourtsRuling
Attheoutset,itwasclearthatthedisputedpropertywasthefilledupportionbetweentheriprapconstructed by
the government and the property covered by TCT No. 221507. According to Daclison, the property covered by
TCTNo.221507hadalreadybeensurrenderedtoBaytionwhichthelatterneverdisputed.Assuch,theCourtis
now confronted with the question as to who between the parties has a better right over this contested portion
betweenthelandcoownedbyBaytionandtheconstructedriprap.
Baytiondoesnothaveabetter
rightoverthecontestedportion
TheRTCandtheCAerredinholdingthatBaytionhasabetterrighttopossessthecontestedportion.
Baytions contention that he owns that portion by reason of accretion is misplaced. Article 457 of the New Civil
Codeprovides:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_219811_2016.html

3/5

9/6/2016

G.R.No.219811

Totheownersoflandsadjoiningthebanksofriversbelongstheaccretionwhichtheygraduallyreceivefromthe
effectsofthecurrentofthewaters.
Inotherwords,thefollowingrequisitesmustconcurinorderforanaccretiontobeconsidered,namely:
(1)thatthedepositbegradualandimperceptible
(2)thatitbemadethroughtheeffectsofthecurrentofthewaterand,
(3)thatthelandwhereaccretiontakesplaceisadjacenttothebanksofrivers.18
In the case at bench, this contested portion cannot be considered an accretion. To begin with, the land came
aboutnotbyreasonofagradualandimperceptibledeposit. Thedepositswereartificialandmanmadeandnot
theexclusiveresultofthecurrentfromthecreekadjacenttohisproperty.Baytionfailedtoprovetheattendance
oftheindispensablerequirementthatthedepositwasduetotheeffectofthecurrentoftheriverorcreek.Alluvion
mustbetheexclusiveworkofnatureandnotaresultofhumanintervention.19
1 w p h i1

Furthermore, the disputed property cannot also be considered an improvement or accession. Article 445 of the
CivilCodeprovides:
Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made
thereon,belongtotheowneroftheland,subjecttotheprovisionsofthefollowingarticles.
[Emphasessupplied]
ItmustbenotedthatArticle445usestheadverb"thereon"whichissimplydefinedas"onthethingthathasbeen
mentioned."20Inotherwords,thesupposedimprovementmustbemade,constructedorintroducedwithinoron
thepropertyandnotoutsidesoastoqualifyasanimprovementcontemplated'bylaw.Otherwise,itwouldjustbe
veryconvenientforlandownerstoexpandorwidentheirpropertiesintheguiseofimprovements.
In view of all the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Court that Baytion, not being the owner of the contested
portion,doesnothaveabetterrighttopossessthesame. Infact,inhisinitiatorypleading,heneverclaimedto
havebeeninpriorpossessionofthispieceofproperty.Hisclaimofownershipiswithoutbasis.Asearlierpointed
out,theportionisneitheranaccretionnoranaccession.Thatbeingsaid,itissafetoconcludethathedoesnot
haveanycauseofactiontoejectDaclison.
1 w p h i1

WHEREFORE,the petition is GRANTED.The February 5, 2015 Decision and the August 3, 2015 Resolution of
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.99627areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Thecomplaintforpossessionis
herebyorderedDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_219811_2016.html

4/5

9/6/2016

G.R.No.219811

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

Rollo,pp.1132.

Id.at3344PennedbyAssociateJusticeElihuA.YbanezwithAssociateJusticesIsaiasP.Dicdicanand
VictoriaIsabelA.Paredes,concurring.
3

Id.at4546.

Id.at8892.PennedbyPresidingJudgeTitaMarilynPayoyoVillordon.

Id.at4752.

Id.at8384.

Id.at92.

Id.at41.

Id.at41.

10

Id.at43.

11

Id.at4344.

12

Id.at2122.

13

Id.at2324.

14

Id.at23.

15

Id.at26.

16

Id.at29.

17

Id.at125126.

18

RepublicofthePhilippinesv.CA,217Phil.483,489(1984).

19

Id.

20

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/thereon.>LastvisitedonMarch2,2016.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_219811_2016.html

5/5