Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > June 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 47184 June 29, 1940 - VICENTE ROMEY v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL

070 Phil 408:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 47184. June 29, 1940.]

VICENTE ROMEY, Petitioner, v. MAMERTO ROXAS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and DIONISIO SADDIE, Respondents.

Nicasio Yatco for Petitioner.

Duran & Lim for respondent Roxas.

C. C. Maceren for respondent Saddie.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; COUNTERCLAIM; CROSS-COMPLAINT; JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OR MUNICIPAL COURT. — A counterclaim is merely a claim for money. When the defendant seeks any other relief than payment of money, his petition is a cross-complaint and not a counterclaim. Defendant’s pleading is a cross-complaint because he seeks therein not merely the payment of rentals but that the plaintiff be ordered to vacate the premises. While the law authorizes the defendant, in actions before a justice of the peace or municipal court, to interpose any lawful defense or any "set-off, counterclaim or reconvention, within the justice’s jurisdiction" (Act No. 1627, Sec. 50) there is no provision entitling him to interpose a cross-complaint. Unless otherwise expressly provided by law, the provisions which govern the procedure in Courts of First Instance are not applicable in inferior courts. (Yu Lay v. Galmes, 40 Phil., 661.) Inferior courts have a limited jurisdiction which cannot be extended by implication. (Elumbaring v. Elumbaring, 12 Phil., 284; Tuason VII. Crossfield, 30 Phil., 543; Africa v. Gronke, 34 Phil., 50.)


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


A petition for certiorari.

Petitioner Vicente Romey filed, in the municipal court of the City of Manila, an action to recover P148 from Dionisio Saddie, one of the respondents herein. The latter filed a cross-complaint which he designated as a counterclaim, claiming the rents of a house he had leased to plaintiff, and asking that plaintiff be ordered to vacate the house. The municipal court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the unpaid rentals and to vacate the house. Plaintiff was notified of this judgment on November 18, 1939, and eleven days thereafter, that is, on November 29, 1939, he perfected his appeal. After the case was docketed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, a motion was filed by the defendant, asking that the judgment on the cross-complaint be executed, on the ground that plaintiff’s appeal was not perfected within ten days. The Court of First Instance held that the appeal was perfected in time as to that portion of the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for money, but out of time with respect to that portion awarding the cross-complaint, the theory being that, as the cross-complaint was for illegal detainer, the appeal should have been perfected within ten days. Accordingly, the court ordered the execution of the judgment on the defendant’s cross-complaint for illegal detainer. It is this order that is now challenged in this petition for certiorari.

Petitioner contends that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to entertain the cross-complaint for illegal detainer, on the ground that there is no allegation therein that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of the contract within five days after demand, and that such demand is jurisdictional. We find, however, that in the complaint filed by the petitioner, there is an allegation that "in the month of August, 1939, the defendant notified the plaintiff to vacate the house . . ." And the cross-complaint was filed on September 14, 1939, that is, more than five days after the demand was made.

On the other hand, the pleading filed by the defendant, Dionisio Saddie, now respondent, which he designated as a counterclaim, is in truth a cross-complaint. A counterclaim is merely a claim for money. When the defendant seeks any other relief than payment of money, his petition is a cross-complaint and not a counterclaim. Defendant’s pleading is a cross-complaint because he seeks therein not merely the payment of rentals but that the plaintiff be ordered to vacate the premises. While the law authorizes the defendant, in actions before a justice of the peace or municipal court, to interpose any lawful defense or any "set-off, counterclaim or reconvention, within the justice’s jurisdiction," (Act No. 1627, sec. 60) there is no provision entitling him to interpose a cross-complaint. Unless otherwise expressly provided by law, the provisions which govern the procedure in Courts of First Instance are not applicable in inferior courts. (Yu Lay v. Galmes, 40 Phil., 651.) Inferior courts have a limited jurisdiction which cannot be extended by implication. (Elumbaring v. Elumbaring, 12 Phil., 384; Tuazon v. Crossfield, 30 Phil., 543; Africa v. Gronke, 34 Phil., 50.) Accordingly, we hold that inferior courts have no power to entertain cross-complaints.

We are not concerned here with the wisdom of the present laws of procedure. Perhaps it would be convenient that all claims closely connected with each other should be disposed of in a single proceeding before an inferior court, as is the system adopted under the new rules or procedure promulgated by this Court but not yet in force. But the application of such system to inferior courts requires the readjustment of other points of procedure which would otherwise create an anomalous situation, and this we cannot do by decision. As, in the instant case, if the cross-complaint be allowed and a single judgment be rendered in the whole action against the plaintiff, the latter may find himself bound to interpose two appeals from that single judgment, one within fifteen days from that portion thereof regarding the ordinary action, and the other, within ten days from the other portion regarding the summary action for illegal detainer. Thus, the appellant would have to file two notices of appeal, deposit twice the appellate court’s docketing fees, and file two appeal bonds. That this anomalous situation has not been contemplated by law is absolutely beyond doubt. And yet this would be the necessary result if we allow the cross-complaint to stand.

It follows that the judgment of the municipal court concerning the alleged illegal detainer is null and void, it having no jurisdiction to entertain the cross-complainant. It is, however, valid with respect to the claim for rentals, it being in the nature of a counterclaim, as in fact the defendant himself has so designated his pleading. There being legally no judgment for illegal detainer, the time for the perfection of an appeal therefrom is fifteen days. And it appearing that the appeal has been perfected within that time, the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to order the execution of the judgment appealed from. Neither has it jurisdiction to order the monthly deposits required by section 88 of Act No. 190.

For all the foregoing, the order issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the execution of the judgment rendered by the municipal court is set aside; the judgment of the municipal court with respect to illegal detainer, declared null and void; and the petitioner’s appeal is hereby declared to have been perfected in time and may take its due course. Without costs.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Laurel, J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46515 June 14, 1940 - VISAYAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

    069 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 46784 June 14, 1940 - AMBROSIO ALTABANO, ET AL. v. MASBATE CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    069 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. 46949 June 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JESUS T. PALUPE

    069 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 46952 June 14, 1940 - ALEJO BASCO v. MACARIO PUZON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. 46954 June 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MIGUEL AMBAL

    069 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. 47035 June 14, 1940 - FELICIANA SANTOS v. JOSE O. VERA

    069 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 47077 June 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ZOILO TOLENTINO

    069 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 46768 June 14, 1940 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. GLORIA MONTINOLA

    069 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 44973 June 17, 1940 - DOROTEO KABAYAO v. FAUSTINO DE VERA

    069 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 46701 June 17, 1940 - MAURICIO CRUZ v. JOSEFINA SANDOVAL

    069 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. 46776 June 17, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 46840 June 17, 1940 - VICTORIANO HERNANDEZ v. MACARIA KATIGBAK VIUDA DE SALAS

    069 Phil 744

  • G.R. Nos. 46884-46886 June 17, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BALDOMERO JULIPA

    069 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. 47020 June 17, 1940 - J UAN O. TOMANENG v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    070 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47071 June 17, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO LEGASPI, ET AL.

    070 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 47133 June 17, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX P. COSTOSA

    070 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 47138 June 17, 1940 - MANILA CHAUFFEURS LEAGUE v. BACHRACH MOTOR Co.

    070 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 47169 June 17, 1940 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE PARAÑAQUE

    070 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 47228 June 17, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTOR DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    070 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 47243 June 17, 1940 - CIPRIANO ABANIL, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT OF BACOLOD

    070 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 49996 June 17, 1940 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. CONSUELO WEBER

    070 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 46667 June 20, 1940 - KERR & COMPANY v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS

    070 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 46685 June 20, 1940 - ROSENDO V. ONGLENGCO v. ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL

    070 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 46698 June 20, 1940 - JOSE H. GUEVARA Y OTROS v. EL JUZCADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE LACUNA

    070 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 46744 June 20, 1940 - ZACARIAS CORELLA v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS

    070 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 46850 June 20, 1940 - UY SIU PIN, ET AL v. CASIMIRA CANTOLLAS, ET AL.

    070 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 46983 June 20, 1940 - CIRIACA TORRES Y ASMA Y OTROS v. CEFERINA LLAMAS DE DEL ROSARIO

    070 Phil 59

  • Asto. Adm. No. 743 June 21, 1940 - VIDAL AGUIRRE y RAMON Z. AGUIRRE v. TOMAS L. RAMOS

    070 Phil 63

  • Adm. Case No. 923 June 21, 1940 - In re Atty. ROQUE SANTIAGO

    070 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 46347 June 21, 1940 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    070 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. 46548 June 21, 1940 - ARMESTO RAMOSO v. JOSE OBLIGADO, ET AL.

    070 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 46995 June 21, 1940 - HERMOGENES N. MARTIR v. ANGELA MARTIR

    070 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 47036 June 21, 1940 - YU WAN v. JOSE LEE YEEK

    070 Phil 94

  • Adm. Case No. 853 June 22, 1940 - MARCELINO MACOCO v. ESTEBAN B. DIAZ

    070 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 46705 June 22, 1940 - JUSTINA y LORENZA SANTOS v. MERCEDES P. VIUDA DE RUFINO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 46719 June 22, 1940 - C. N. HODGES v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    070 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 46900 June 22, 1940 - G. LITTON v. BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    070 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 47012 June 22, 1940 - LORENZO ALEJANDRINO v. BENIGNO AQUINO Y OTRO

    070 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 47025 June 22, 1940 - EL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS v. CHING YAP

    070 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 47047 June 22, 1940 - EL GOBIERNO MUNICIPAL DE SAN PEDRO v. LA JUNTA PROVINCIAL DE LAGUNA

    070 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 47125 June 22, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GERARDO EVANGELISTA Y MARAMOT

    070 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 46824 June 24, 1940 - JULIAN GALA, ET AL v. RUFINO RODRIGUEZ Y OTROS

    070 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 46889 June 25, 1940 - ANDRES CASTRO v. A. R. YANDOC, ET AL

    070 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 47021 June 25, 1940 - YEE SUE KOY, ET AL. v. MARIANO G. ALMEDA, ET AL

    070 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 47030 June 25, 1940 - LUZON BROKERAGE Co., INC. v. COMISION DE SERVlCIOS PUBLICOS y V. FRAGANTE

    070 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 47049 June 26, 1940 - CLEMENTE FERNANDEZ v. ENGRACIA SEBIDO, ET AL

    070 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 47118 June 25, 1940 - SALE DE PORKAN v. ALFREDO YATCO, ET AL.

    070 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 47145 June 25, 1940 - JUNZO OHKAWA, ET AL. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS y V. FRAGANTE

    070 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 47185 June 25, 1940 - WEST COAST LlFE INSURANCE CO. v. SEVERO HERNANDO, ET AL

    070 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 47214 June 26, 1940 - ANGEL SUNTAY y EDNA R. SUNTAY v. EMILIANO T. TIRONA

    070 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46473 June 26, 1940 - EMETERIO BARCELON v. H. P. L. JOLLYE

    070 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 46656 June 26, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE MAGPALE

    070 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 46706 June 26, 1940 - JOSE M. CARIÑO v. P. FERNANDO MA. ABAYA

    070 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 46839 June 26, 1940 - EL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS v. DOROTEO GUNGUN Y OTROS

    070 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 46924 June 26, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO MACANDILI, ET AL

    070 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 47006 June 26, 1940 - PEDRO DE LEON v. ALEJO MABANAG

    070 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 47055 June 26, 1940 - FELISA S. MARCELO v. DANIEL V. ESTACIO

    070 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 47065 June 26, 1940 - PANGASINAN TRANS. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    070 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 47089 June 26, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MALAZARTE

    070 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 47099 June 26, 1940 - TEODORO BAGUISI v. EULALIO ADRIANO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 237

  • Adm. Case No. 632 June 27, 1940 - IN RE: Atty. MELCHOR E. RUSTE

    070 Phil 243

  • Adm. Case No. 747 June 27, 1940 - GERARDO GO BELTRAN v. INOCENTES FERNANDEZ

    070 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 46389 June 27, 1940 - RAMON DEL ROSARIO v. VIRGINIA DEL ROSARIO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 46592 June 27, 1940 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.

    070 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 46634 June 27, 1940 - CATALINA DE LA CRUZ v. EMIGDIO BUENAVENTURA

    070 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 46640 June 27, 1940 - SEGISMUNDO ALZONA v. HUGO ORILLENEDA

    070 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 46642 June 27, 1940 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. FORTUNATO G. LAPID

    070 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 46647 June 27, 1940 - EL BANCO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. FELICIDAD KIAMCO

    070 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 46655 June 27, 1940 - GABRIELA SAN DIEGO v. BERNABE CARDONA, ET AL

    070 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 46722 June 27, 1940 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    070 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 46782 June 27, 1940 - JOSE GALLOFIN v. YUTI ORDOÑEZ, ET AL

    070 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 46870 June 27, 1940 - BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. MANUEL CAMUS Y OTROS

    070 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 47080 June 27, 1940 - VALENTA ZABALLERO ET AL. v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    070 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. 47106 June 27, 1940 - AURELIO PALILEO v. ROSARIO COSME MENDOZA

    070 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 47107 June 27, 1940 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. PHIL. MATCH FACTORY, ET AL

    070 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 47115 June 27, 1940 - HIP0LITA DOLINA CHAPMAN, ET AL v. ONG TO

    070 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 47143 June 27, 1940 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. MATIAS A. FERNANDO

    070 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 47154 June 27, 1940 - SALVACION ESPINOSA v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    070 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 47170 June 27, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    070 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 47211 June 27, 1940 - ROSENDO MARCOS Y OTROS v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE BULACAN

    070 Phil 317

  • G.R. Nos. 46629 y 46639 June 28, 1940 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION v. VICENTE DE VERA

    070 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 46720 June 28, 1940 - WELLS FARGO BANK & UNION TRUST CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    070 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 46775 June 28, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JULIAN SORIANO

    070 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 46892 June 28, 1940 - ANTAMOK GOLDFIELDS MINING CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    070 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 47051 June 28, 1940 - MUN. COUNCIL OF PARAÑAQUE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL

    070 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 47174 June 28, 1940 - ELIODORA LIPANA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE

    070 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 45072 June 29, 1940 - JUAN RUIZ v. JOSE TOPACIO

    070 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 45351 June 29, 1940 - CU UNJIENG E HIJOS v. MABALACAT SUGAR CO., ET AL

    070 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 46648 June 29, 1940 - LUIS GUERRERO Y ADELA HENRY DE GUERRERO v. DONATO C. YUZON

    070 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 46847 June 29, 1940 - MAXIMINA MARCELINO v. ROSARIO ANTONIO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 46902 June 29, 1940 - AARON NADELA, ET AL v. RICARDO CABRAS

    070 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47079 June 29, 1940 - MACONDRAY & CO., ET AL v. PEDRO COLETO Y OTROS

    070 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 47168 June 29, 1940 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. ANASTACIO EXCONDE

    070 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 47184 June 29, 1940 - VICENTE ROMEY v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL

    070 Phil 408