Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > April 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1664 April 21, 1948 - MARIA BONGALA, ET AL. v. JOSE BARBAZA

080 Phil 767:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-1664. April 21, 1948.]

MARIA BONGALA and ELIAS GORAYEB, defendants-petitioners, v. JOSE BARBAZA, Jr. and MERCEDES FORTICH, plaintiffs-respondents; BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge, Respondent.

Honorio Caringal, for Petitioners.

Jose Barbaza, jr., and Mercedes Fortich, for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; WITHHOLDING OF POSSESSION FROM VENDEE; COMPLAINT AIMED AT RECOVERING POSSESSION; CASE AT BAR. — The complaint in the case at bar was held to be for the evident purpose of recovering the possession of an immovable from the vendors who were withholding it from the vendees, a remedy specifically provided in section 1 of Rule 72; for although plaintiffs do not ask in so many words that defendants be ordered to vacate the questioned premises, it is implied in the general prayer for any other remedy in accordance with justice and equity, considering plaintiffs’ allegations as to the exclusive purpose in buying the property and the urgency of having to move out from their residence in June.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL AND JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS. — Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, as amended, confers exclusive original jurisdiction upon municipal and justice of the peace courts on ejectment cases within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession committed by defendant.


D E C I S I O N


PERFECTO, J.:


Petitioners were sued on July 17, 1947, in the Court of First Instance presided by respondent judge, where plaintiffs alleged that petitioners were withholding the possession of the premises known as No. 240 Apelo Cruz, Rizal City.

On August 9, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that (a) a forcible entry and detainer case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of Rule 72; (b) even if it were to be cognizable by said court, the complaint is not verified under oath and no notice was made to the petitioners prior to the filing of the complaint; and (c) the complaint does not allege facts to constitute a cause of action. The motion was denied on August 23. On September 1, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on September 6.

In the complaint sought by petitioners to be dismissed, plaintiffs Barbaza and Fortich allege that on April 19, 1947, petitioners executed a deed of sale selling to plaintiffs the property in question in consideration of the price of P15,000; that defendants promised to vacate the premises within two months, but failed to do so and continued to occupy the property; that when plaintiffs bought the property it was with the purpose of occupying it with their family and defendants knew that plaintiffs had to move out from their residence in June, because the owner of the house they were occupying wanted to occupy it immediately; that defendants had leased the upper story to third persons at P150 a month, and prayed that defendants be sentenced to pay to plaintiffs P20 a day as damages from June 19, 1947, to the date when defendants shall have returned and transferred the possession of the property to plaintiffs; to pay to plaintiffs the amount of P300 which defendants have received from their lessees from April 19 to June 19, 1947, and the payment of other amounts said lessees may pay thereafter; to pay P200 as attorney’s fees, plus costs; and to give to plaintiffs other remedies according to justice and equity.

From the above, it is clear that the complaint filed is one for ejectment under the provisions of section 1, Rule 72, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Who may institute proceedings, and when. —Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper inferior court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. The complaint must be verified."cralaw virtua1aw library

The complaint was filed with the evident purpose of recovering the possession of an immovable from the vendors who were withholding it from the vendees, a remedy specifically provided in the above-quoted reglementary provision.

Plaintiffs do not ask in so many words that defendants be ordered to vacate the premises, but it is implied in the general prayer for any other remedy in accordance with justice and equity, considering plaintiffs’ allegations as to the exclusive purpose in buying the property and the urgency of having to move out from their residence in June.

The complaint has been filed within one month after the alleged breach by defendants of their obligation to vacate the premises and turn over its possession to plaintiffs.

Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, as amended, confers exclusive original jurisdiction upon municipal and justice of the peace courts on ejectment cases within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession committed by defendant.

The Court of First Instance presided by respondent judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint in question, which must be originally filed with the proper municipal or justice of the peace court.

For all the foregoing, the order of respondent judge dated August 23, 1947, denying the dismissal of the complaint in civil case No. 257, Jose Barbaza, Jr., Et. Al. v. Maria Bongala Et. Al., is set aside, and said complaint is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs to file said complaint with the municipal court of Rizal City. No costs.

Feria, Pablo and Bengzon, JJ., concur.




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






April-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1762 April 1, 1948 - JOSE FUENTEBELLA v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO

    080 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. L-1584 April 2, 1948 - EMILIA TEOXON contra. FELIX B. PANIS

    080 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. L-612 April 3, 1948 - JOSEFA AGUSTINES v. JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN

    080 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-1213 April 6, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO LABITAN VINDUA

    080 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-2092 April 6, 1948 - JUSTO CAMAT v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-301 April 7, 1948 - CARLOS PALANCA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    080 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-554 April 9, 1948 - HAW PIA v. CHINA BANKING CORP.

    080 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-2010 April 9, 1948 - CIPRIANO RAYMUNDO v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    080 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-1882 April 10, 1948 - MATEO RAMOS v. COMELEC

    080 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1414 April 16, 1948 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS contra. JOSE DE JESUS

    080 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-1904 April 16, 1948 - C. N. HODGES v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    080 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-1598 April 19, 1948 - NICOLASA SALVO DE PERNIA v. MEYNARDO M. FAROL

    080 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-1939 April 19, 1948 - SIXTO CASIN v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    080 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1220 April 21, 1948 - MATEA RESTAURO v. DOMINGO FABRICA

    080 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-1493 April 21, 1948 - ANTONIA ESPINA v. CATALINA COLINA, ET AL.

    080 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1664 April 21, 1948 - MARIA BONGALA, ET AL. v. JOSE BARBAZA

    080 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. L-1486 April 26, 1948 - ARIAS MAGONCIA contra. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    080 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-770 April 27, 1948 - ANGEL T. LIMJOCO v. PEDRO O. FRAGANTE

    080 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-254 April 30, 1948 - Carlos Gil v. ROBERTO TOLEDO Y GIL III

    080 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-348 April 30, 1948 - FLORENTINO PASCUA v. JOSE TALENS

    080 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-416 April 30, 1948 - GREGORIO MIGUEL v. VICENTE TOSE

    080 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-578 April 30, 1948 - PRIMITIVO RIVERO v. VICTORIANO RIVERO, ET AL.

    080 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-1115 April 30, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. FRANCISCO SEPILLO

    080 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-1248 April 30, 1948 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS contra. DATU ALIMPANG MANTAWAR

    080 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-1276 April 30, 1948 - ROSARIO VALERA v. MARIANO TUASON

    080 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-1543 April 30, 1948 - JULIAN SOGUECO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    080 Phil 829