Dear Atty. Gab

Musta Atty! I hope you can shed some light on my situation. My name is Andres Santiago, and I own a parcel of land in Barangay San Isidro, Batangas, which I inherited from my parents. For several years now, my neighbor, Mr. Ricardo Cruz, has been slowly encroaching on my property. At first, it was just his fence line extending a meter or two onto my lot. I tried talking to him nicely, showing him my title and the survey plan, but he always brushed it off.

We even went through barangay conciliation about two years ago, but he didn’t really engage seriously, and nothing came of it. Now, he’s built a small concrete structure that clearly sits on about 15 square meters of my land! I sent him a formal demand letter last month asking him to vacate and remove the structure, but his lawyer replied, raising all sorts of issues. His lawyer claims that since my demand letter and even our barangay complaint didn’t specify the ‘assessed value’ of that specific 15-square-meter portion, any court case I file would be invalid. He also mentioned that since I waited this long to take formal legal action, I might have lost my right to complain.

I’m really confused and worried. Does the court really need the exact assessed value of just the small encroached part? And is it true that because I tried to resolve this peacefully for years, I might be too late to file a case to get my property back? The whole property is registered under my name. It feels unjust that he can use these technicalities after clearly taking part of my land. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Salamat po,

Andres Santiago

Dear Andres,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand your frustration dealing with an encroaching neighbor and the confusing legal technicalities being raised. It’s a common issue, unfortunately. Your situation touches upon important legal principles regarding court jurisdiction in property disputes and the effect of delay or prior actions on a party’s ability to raise legal objections.

Essentially, the law requires certain information, like the assessed value of the property, to determine which court has the authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case. However, the rules are not always applied rigidly, especially when a party’s conduct suggests they’ve accepted the court’s authority or waited too long to object. Let’s explore this further.

Navigating Property Disputes: Jurisdiction and Timeliness

When you file a case to recover possession or ownership of real property, like your situation with Mr. Cruz, the court needs to establish its authority to hear the dispute. This authority is called jurisdiction, and for civil cases involving land, it’s often determined by the property’s assessed value – the value assigned to it for taxation purposes, typically found in the Tax Declaration.

The law governing jurisdiction at the time your action might be filed, specifically Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, states which courts handle these cases based on value:

“Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction… (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer…”

This means that ideally, your complaint should state the assessed value of the property subject of the action to show that you are filing in the correct court (usually the Regional Trial Court or RTC, if the value exceeds the threshold, or the Municipal Trial Court/MTC if it doesn’t). Failure to state the assessed value in the complaint can be a ground for dismissal because the court cannot immediately determine if it has jurisdiction based solely on the pleading.

However, the issue of jurisdiction isn’t always black and white, especially concerning how and when it can be questioned. While it’s a fundamental principle that a court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, this rule isn’t absolute. The principle of estoppel by laches can prevent a party from questioning jurisdiction, particularly if they have actively participated in the case without raising the issue earlier.

Estoppel by laches essentially means that a party is barred from asserting a claim or right (like questioning jurisdiction) if they have delayed doing so for an unreasonable length of time, and this delay has caused prejudice or disadvantage to the other party who relied on the inaction. In the context of court proceedings:

“While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, ‘this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened.’ … respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered.”

This principle highlights that fairness is also a key consideration. If a party, like your neighbor perhaps, participates in preliminary proceedings (like barangay conciliation) or, more significantly, participates actively in court proceedings (e.g., filing an answer, attending hearings, presenting evidence) without immediately questioning jurisdiction based on the assessed value, they might be stopped from suddenly raising that technical objection later, especially if they sense the case isn’t going in their favor.

The courts recognize that:

“participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred the respondent by estoppel from challenging the court’s jurisdiction.”

Therefore, regarding your neighbor’s lawyer’s claim about the assessed value: while it’s best practice to include it in the complaint, if a case proceeds and your neighbor actively participates without immediately filing a motion to dismiss based specifically on the lack of alleged assessed value, a court might rule later that he is estopped from raising it. Furthermore, the assessed value of the entire parcel of land covered by your title, not just the small encroached portion, might be the relevant value for determining jurisdiction in an action for recovery of possession (accion reinvindicatoria).

Regarding the argument that you waited too long (laches), this is a separate defense. While ownership rights over registered land are generally imprescriptible (they don’t expire), unreasonable delay in asserting your rights could potentially be raised as a defense of laches if the delay caused significant prejudice to the other party. However, simply trying to resolve matters peacefully for some years, including barangay conciliation, is usually not considered unreasonable delay that would bar your claim entirely, especially when the encroachment is clear and ongoing.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Determine Assessed Value: Obtain the latest Tax Declaration for your entire property. This document will state the assessed value, which you should include in any formal court complaint (likely an accion reinvindicatoria).
• Consult a Lawyer: Engage your own lawyer to prepare and file the appropriate complaint. They can ensure all procedural requirements, including stating the assessed value, are met.
• Gather Evidence: Compile all evidence of your ownership (title, survey plans), the encroachment (photos, timeline), and your prior efforts to resolve the issue (demand letters, barangay certificates).
• Document Participation: Keep records of Mr. Cruz’s participation in the barangay proceedings. If a court case is filed, his active participation (filing an answer, attending hearings) will be crucial if his lawyer attempts to raise the jurisdiction issue late.
• Anticipate Defenses: Be prepared for your neighbor to raise both the jurisdictional challenge (assessed value) and the defense of laches (delay). Your lawyer can formulate arguments against these defenses, emphasizing estoppel and the reasonableness of your actions.
• Focus on the Correct Action: Your goal is to recover possession based on your ownership. An accion reinvindicatoria filed in the proper court (RTC or MTC, depending on the assessed value of the entire lot) is likely the correct legal remedy.
• Consider Settlement: While litigation is an option, remain open to a fair settlement if possible, perhaps through further negotiation or mediation, even after a case is filed.

While the points raised by your neighbor’s lawyer are standard arguments, they are not insurmountable. The principle of estoppel often prevents parties from benefiting from technicalities after participating in the process. Focus on clearly establishing your ownership, the encroachment, and filing the correct action in the proper court with all necessary details, including the assessed value of your property.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.