Municipal Trial Court in Cities: Plaintiff

Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

11th Judicial Region, Branch 4
Davao City
ECOLAND PROPERTIES CIVIL CASE NO. M-DVO-18-04176-CV

DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Represented by Romulo C.
Gardose,
Plaintiff.
-versus- FOR: RECOVERY OF

POSSESSION, DAMAGES
AND ATTY’S FEES
ARMANDO QUIAMCO and
any other persons acting for
and in his/her behalf,
Defendant.
x----------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
A complaint for recovery of possession, damages and attorney’s fees

was filed by plaintiff, ECOLAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, as represented by Romulo C. Gardose against
defendant, ARMANDO QUIAMCO, with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Davao City, on October 10, 2018.
Plaintiff, ECOLAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, is a corporation organized ang existing under Philippine
Laws with principal office located at 2281 Pasong Tamo Extension, Makati
City, Philippines. It is represented by ROMULO C. GARDOSE in the filing
of this case as evidenced by a Secretary’s Certificate (Exh “A”). On the
other hand, defendant, ARMANDO QUIAMCO, is presently occupying and
residing at Anthurium Street, Ecoland, Brgy. 76-A, Davao City.
Plaintiff is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Brgy. 76-

A, Ecoland, Matina, Davao City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-69155 (Exh “B”) with an area of 91,372,00 sq. meters more or less. Such
subject property has been declared for taxation purposes under the name
of the plaintiff as evidenced by Exh “C.”
1
Plaintiff conducted an investigation as to the occupants of the subject
property. It was discovered that defendant has been occupying a portion of
the said property with a total area of 77 sq. meters, more or less. Thus, on
September 15, 2018, plaintiff issued a Final Demand Letter to Vacate (Exh
“D”) the subject property. Plaintiff, as represented by Romulo C. Gardose,
went to the subject property and personally served to the defendant the
Final Demand Letter to Vacate. The defendant, however, refused to sign
the letter.
Despite the issuance of a Final Demand Letter to Vacate, defendant

refused to vacate the subject property. Thus, plaintiff filed a complaint for
recovery of possession, damages and attorney’s fees.
On July 26, 2021, plaintiff received the Sheriff’s Return of Summons

showing that the Defendant was served with copy of the summons and of
the complaint, together with annexes on July 19, 2021. However, defendant
has failed to file his Answer within the reglementary period under the Rules
of Court. Thus, plaintiff, as represented by Romulo C. Gardose, filed a
Motion to Declare Defendant in Default on October 22, 2021. Such motion
was granted on December 16, 2021. Hence, plaintiff presented evidence
ex-parte.
For resolution before this court is the issue of whether or not plaintiff,
ECOLAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, is entitled to
recover the possession of the subject property which is currently occupied
by defendant, ARMANDO QUIAMCO.
RULING OF THE COURT
As held in the case of Heirs of Alfredo Cullado vs. Gutierrez 1, the

three usual actions in recovery of possession of real property are:
1. Accion interdictal or a summary ejectment proceeding, which may be
either for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), for
the recovery of physical or material possession (possession de facto)
where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and
should be brought in the proper inferior court;
1
Heirs of Alfredo Cullado vs Gutierrez, G.R. No. 212938 (July 30, 2019)
2
2. Accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the better right of
possession (possession de jure), which should be brought in the proper
inferior court or Regional Trial Court (depending upon the value of the
property) when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year (or
for less than a year in cases other than those mentioned in Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court); and
3. Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion or reivindicatory action,
which is an action for recovery of ownership which must be brought in the
proper inferior court or Regional Trial Court (depending upon the value of
the property).
First, in an accion interdictal, “a person deprived of the possession of

any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of
any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination
of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied,
or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee,
or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper
Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding
or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them,
for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.” 2
Judgment in cases involving accion interdictal are conclusive only as to the
issue of possession and not binding with respect to the issue on ownership.
Thus, it will not preclude the parties from bringing a separate action to
determine title over the land or building.
Second, in an accion publiciana, the sole issue to be determined is

who has the better right of possession over the property independent of
ownership. If ownership has been raised in the pleadings and the case
cannot be resolved without determining the issue on ownership, the court
may pass upon such issue to resolve the issue of possession. The
resolution of ownership, however, is tentative and only for the purpose of
resolving the issue of possession.
Lastly, an accion reivindicatoria, is a suit to recover possession of a

parcel of land as an element of ownership. It is an action whereby the
plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its
full possession. The judgment in such case determines the ownership of
2
Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court
3
the property and awards the possession of the property to the lawful
owner.3 It is different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where
plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of
title.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, the suit filed by plaintiff is

an accion reivindicatoria as plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the
parcel of land on the basis of its ownership of the said subject property.
The fundamental question in such action is whether the plaintiff has
presented sufficient evidence to prove his ownership of the properties in
question. Once ownership is established, possession follows since a
registered owner of a property is, without a doubt, entitled to its possession.
To support its claim, plaintiff presented the following:

a) Exh. “B” – TCT No. 161650 to prove that the plaintiff is the
registered owner of the property;
b) Exh. “C” – Tax declaration to prove that the property has been
declared for taxation purposes;
c) Exh “D” – Final Demand Letter to Vacate dated September 12,
2018;
d) Exh. “E” – Sketch Map to prove that the defendant is occupying
a portion of property of the plaintiff.
It is clear, therefore, based on the above-mentioned evidence, that

plaintiff, ECOLAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CORP., is the
registered owner of the subject property and that defendant, ARMANDO
QUIMCO, is occupying a portion of such property. Due to defendant’s
failure to file an answer, he was not able to present any evidence to
controvert the title of the plaintiff over the subject property. A title issued by
the government is presumed to be regularly issued and is prima facie
evidence of the contents thereof. Further, while tax declarations are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property. 4 With these, plaintiff’s ownership over such
property remains to be undisputed. Such ownership entitles plaintiff to
3
Amoroso vs Alegre, G.R. No. 142766 (June 15, 2007)
4
Republic vs Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 198585 (July 2, 2012)
4
possession over the same property. Thus, defendant must vacate the
subject property in favor of the plaintiff.
Considering that the plaintiff has been deprived of the use of its
property, a monthly rental for such use may be demanded from the
defendant until possession over the subject property has been given to the
plaintiff. Further, as plaintiff was constrained to engage the services of a
counsel for the purpose of filing this case due to the defendant’s refusal to
vacate and peacefully settle the case with the plaintiff, the latter is also
entitled to recover attorney’s fees from the defendant.
WHEREFORE, the complaint filed by herein plaintiff for recovery of

possession, damages and attorney’s fees is hereby granted. Defendant is
hereby ordered to vacate the subject property and pay the plaintiff the
following:
a) A monthly rental of Php 5,000.00 for the use of the subject property
from September 2018, i.e. date when the Final Demand Letter to
Vacate had been served to the defendant, until the possession of the
property is given to the plaintiff;
b) Attorney’s fees in the amount of Php 25,000.00 (Acceptance Fee)
plus an amount of Php 2,000.00 per court appearance;
c) Cost of the suit.
JUDGE CATHERINE M. GUERZO-BARRION

Presiding Judge
Copy furnished:
 ATTY. ERIC JASON TEJERO – NB Mercado Bldg., Mac Arthur Highway corner
Sandawa Matina, Davao City
 ECOLAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Rep. by Romulo
Gardose – 139 Peacock Street, Phase II, Ecoland Subdivision, Matina, Davao
City
 ARMANDO QUIAMCO – Anthurium Street, Ecoland, Brgy. 76-A, Davao City

Municipal Trial Court in Cities: Plaintiff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipal Trial Court in Cities: Plaintiff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipal Trial Court in Cities: Plaintiff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

ECOLAND PROPERTIES CIVIL CASE NO. M-DVO-18-04176-CV

-versus- FOR: RECOVERY OF

A complaint for recovery of possession, damages and attorney’s fees

Plaintiff, ECOLAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT

Plaintiff is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Brgy. 76-

Despite the issuance of a Final Demand Letter to Vacate, defendant

On July 26, 2021, plaintiff received the Sheriff’s Return of Summons

RULING OF THE COURT

As held in the case of Heirs of Alfredo Cullado vs. Gutierrez 1, the

First, in an accion interdictal, “a person deprived of the possession of

Second, in an accion publiciana, the sole issue to be determined is

Lastly, an accion reivindicatoria, is a suit to recover possession of a

Based on the aforementioned discussion, the suit filed by plaintiff is

To support its claim, plaintiff presented the following:

It is clear, therefore, based on the above-mentioned evidence, that

WHEREFORE, the complaint filed by herein plaintiff for recovery of

JUDGE CATHERINE M. GUERZO-BARRION

You might also like