3. Accion Reivindicatoria

Accion reinvindicatoria

It is an action to recover real property based on ownership. Here, the object is the recovery of the dominion over the property as owner.

NOTE: Where the facts averred in the complaint reveals that the action is neither one of forcible entry nor unlawful detainer but essentially involves a boundary dispute, the same must be resolved in an accion reivindicatoria. (Sarmiento v. CA, G.R. No. 116192, November 16, 1995)

Requisites of accion reivindicatoria

• Identity of property; and
• Plaintiff’s title to the property.

Q: A contract of lease executed by Alava (lessor) and Anita Lao (lessee) was not registered with the Register of Deeds. Aside from Anita, Rudy Lao also leased a portion of the same property where he put up his business. At that time, Rudy knew that Anita and her husband were the owners of the said building. He also knew that she had leased that portion of the property, and that Jaime Lao, their son, managed and maintained the building, as well as the business thereon. Rudy eventually purchased the entire property from Alava. Rudy then filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Jaime alleging that the latter had occupied a portion of his property without any lease agreement and without paying any rentals, and prayed that an order be rendered directing Jaime to vacate the premises. Should the complaint be dismissed?

A: YES. The records in this case show that the respondent has been in possession of the property in question, not by mere tolerance or generosity of Rudy, but as the manager of his mother, who conducted her business in the building which stood on a portion of the property leased from Alava. Jaime’s possession was in behalf of his mother, and not in his own right. (Lao v. Lao, G.R. No. 149599, May 16, 2005)

Q: In August 2001, the Spouses Javier offered to purchase the Marikina property. However, they could not afford to pay the price of ₱3,500,000.00. They offered instead to lease the property while they raise enough money. Racelis hesitated at first but she eventually agreed. The parties agreed on a month-to-month lease and rent of ₱10,000.00 per month. This was later increased to ₱11,000.00. The Spouses Javier used the property as their residence and as the site of their tutorial school.

Sometime in 2002, Racelis inquired whether they are still interested to purchase the property then Sps. Javier agreed and even said that they would pay Php 100,000.00 to buy them more time within which to pay the purchase price. But they only delivered Php 78,000.00 but they consistently paid rent until February 2004. Then Racelis wrote to inform them that her family had decided to terminate the lease agreement and to offer the property to other interested buyers. In the same letter, Racelis demanded that they vacate the property by May 30, 2004. The Spouses Javier refused to vacate due to the ongoing operation of their tutorial business. They insisted that the sum of ₱78,000.00 was advanced rent and proposed that this amount be applied to their outstanding liability until they vacate the premises. Whether or Not they can suspend their payment?

A: NO. In this case, the disconnection of electrical service over the leased premises on May 14, 2004 was not just an act of physical disturbance but one that is meant to remove respondents from the leased premises and disturb their legal possession as lessees. Ordinarily, this would have entitled respondents to invoke the right accorded by Article 1658 of the Civil Code. However, this rule will not apply in the present case because the lease had already expired when petitioner requested for the temporary disconnection of electrical service. Petitioner demanded respondents to vacate the premises by May 30, 2004. Instead of surrendering the premises to petitioner, respondents unlawfully withheld possession of the property. Respondents continued to stay in the premises until they moved to their new residence on September 26, 2004. At that point, petitioner was no longer obligated to maintain respondents in the "peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract." (Victoria Racelis v. Sps. Javier, G.R. No. 189609, January 29, 2018, as penned by J. Leonen)

Q: Spouses Magtanggol managed and operated a gasoline station on a 1,000 sq.m. lot which they leased from Francisco Biglaawa. The contract was for a period of three years. When the contract expired, Francisco asked the spouses to peacefully vacate the premises. The spouses ignored the demand and continued with the operation of the gasoline station.

One month after, Francisco, with the aid of a group of armed men, caused the closure of the gasoline station by constructing fences around it. Was the act of Francisco and his men lawful? Why?

A: NO, the act was not lawful. Even if the lessee’s right to occupy the premises has expired, the lessor cannot physically oust the lessee from the leased premises if the latter refuses to vacate. The lessor must go through the proper channels by filing an appropriate case for unlawful detainer or recovery of possession. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession (NCC, Art. 539) and in no case can possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto (NCC, Art. 536). The act of Francisco is an abuse of rights because even if he has the right to recover possession of his property, he must act with justice and give the lessees their day in court and observe honesty and good faith.

Reasons why the plaintiff is NOT allowed to rely on the weakness of defendant’s title in cases of property possession or ownership:

• Possibility that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of the property. In which case, the defendant who is in possession will be preferred;
• A possessor in the concept of an owner is presumed to have a just title and cannot be obliged to show or prove it (NCC, Art. 541);
• Possessor in the concept of an owner is presumed to be in good faith and he cannot be expected to be carrying every now and then his proofs of ownership over the property; and
• He who relies on the existence of a fact, should prove that fact. If he cannot prove, the defendant does not have to prove.