FRANCISCO DEPRA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

 AGUSTIN DUMLAO, Defendant-
Appellant.
CASE DIGEST personally made by Ivan Jed T. Rosal on Sept. 2 at exactly 11:52pm
(Dili na internet gikan haha)

Facts:
-(Plaintiff) Francisco Depra, is the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 685, situated
in the municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo, with an area of approximately 8,870 square meters.
(Defendant)Agustin Dumlao, defendant-appellant, owns an adjoining lot, designated as Lot
No. 683.

-(Defendant)Agustin Dumlao constructed a house on his lot but his kitchen encroached onto
the petitioner’s lot by 34 square meters based on a relocation survey conducted on
petitioner’s lot.

-Petitioner’s mother filed a case of unlawful detainer against defendant at the Municipal
Court of Dumangas after telling the defendant to move back the encroachment.

-Municipal Court ruled that Dumlao was in good faith and applying Article 448 of the Civil
Code, decreed a forced lease between the parties. None appealed. Petitioner did not receive
the payments and defendant deposited the payments to the court instead.

-After a year, petitioner filed a complaint for quieting on the CFI Iloilo of title on the very
same land involving the same issues. Defendant raised res judicata but petitioner argued
that that the Decision of the Municipal Court was null and void ab initio because its
jurisdiction is limited to the sole issue of possession, whereas decisions affecting lease,
which is an encumbrance on real property, may only be rendered by Courts of First
Instance.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the decision of the Municipal Court had jurisdiction over the
matter; (2) Whether or not petitioner had the right to remove the kitchen by virtue of
“possession”

Ruling: -(1) The Decision of the Municipal Court, we hold the same to be null and void. The
judgment in a detainer case is effective in respect of possession only.The Municipal Court
over-stepped its bounds when it imposed upon the parties a situation of "forced lease",
which like "forced co-ownership" is not favored in law. Furthermore, a lease is an interest in
real property, jurisdiction over which belongs to Courts of First Instance.

-It was thus error for the Trial Court to have ruled that DEPRA is "entitled to possession,"
without more, of the disputed portion implying thereby that he is entitled to have the
kitchen removed. He is entitled to such removal only when, after having chosen to sell his
encroached land, DUMLAO fails to pay for the same.
-Applying Art. 448, petitioner is given 15 days to exercise his option under law to either to
buy the kitchen based on the expenses or the increase in value OR to oblige DUMLAO of to
pay the price of the said area.