FACTS:
Cruz was the owner of a parcel of land. Adjacent to this lot is one wherein Sarmiento had a house built on. On trying to cause the relocation of her lot, Cruz found out that Sarmiento was encroaching on her property. When Cruz talked to Sarmiento about constructing a new fence, which will cover her true property, the latter vehemently refused to do so and threatened Cruz with legal action. For fear of being sued in court, she sought judicial relief. The trial court decided in favor of Cruz. Sarmiento tried to assail this decision by saying that the issue was on ownership of the portion of land and thus, the action should have been an accion reivindicatoria and not forcible entry.
HELD:
A careful reading of the facts averred in said complaint filed by Cruz reveals that the action is neither of forcible entry nor of unlawful detainer but essentially involves a boundary dispute, which must be resolved in an accion reivindicatoria on the issue of ownership over the portion of a lot.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are distinct actions.
Cruz cannot belatedly claim that petitioner’s possession of the controverted portion was by mere tolerance. The complaint didn’t characterize Sarmiento’s alleged entry on the land—whether legal or illegal. The complaint admitted also of the fact that the fence had already preexisted on the lot when she acquired the same.
This was definitely not a situation obtained in and gave rise to an ejectment suit for two reasons. First, forcible entry into the land is an open challenge to the right of the lawful possessor, the violation of which
right authorizes the speedy redress in the inferior court provided for in the Rules. Second, if a forcible entry action in the court is allowed after the lapse of a number of years, then the result may well be no action of forcible entry can really prescribe. No matter how long such defendant is in physical possession, the plaintiff may just throw in a demand, file a suit in court and summarily throw him out of the land.
