ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1823   May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO<br /><br />083 Phil 691

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1823. May 26, 1949.]

    GERONIMO DE LOS REYES, Petitioner, v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, in his capacity as Justice of the Peace of the Municipality of Calauan, Laguna, and MARIA B. CASTRO, Respondents.

    Bausa & Ampil for Petitioner.

    Rosendo J. Tansinsin for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER; JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT; JURISDICTION; MERE ALLEGATION OF OWNERSHIP IN DEFENDANT’S ANSWER DOES NOT DIVEST COURT’S JURISDICTION; DOCTRINE REITERATED. — The mere fact that the defendant, in his answer, claims to be the owner of the property from which the plaintiff seeks to eject him, is not sufficient to divest the justice of the peace or the municipal court of its summary jurisdiction in action for forcible entry and detainer, because, were the principle otherwise, the ends of justice would be frustrated by making the efficacy of this kind of action depend upon the defendant in all cases. Exception may be made when the evidence during the trial in said court shows that the question of title is actually involved and that the defendant’s contention, according to said evidence, is meritorious.


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    The facts in the present case may be briefly stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On August 31, 1943, a contract entitled "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" was entered into between the petitioner Geronimo de los Reyes, as vendor, and the respondent Maria B. Castro, as vendee, involving the sale of two parcels of land covered by transfer certificates of title Nos. 8254 and 8255, of the office of the register of deeds of the Province of Laguna, whereby said parcels were sold to Maria B. Castro for the sum of P120,000. The sale included work animals found on the lands consisting of four carabaos and one Australian saddle horse. The right to repurchase reserved to the vendor is stipulated in paragraph 2, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the seller hereby expressly reserves to himself and the buyer by these presents grants unto said seller, his heirs, successors or assigns, the right to repurchase and redeem the above mentioned properties and improvements covered by this sale; it being understood, however, that said right of repurchase and redemption shall be exercised by said seller, his heirs, executors and assigns on or before the expiration of the period of four (4) years counted from the date of the signing of this agreement by the parties herein, but not before the lapse of the period of two (2) years counted from the date of the signing of this agreement by the parties herein. In other words, said right of redemption shall be exercised at any time during the period between August 31, 1945, and August 31, 1947." (Appendix A.)

    On the same day, August 31, 1943, a "Contract of Lease" was entered into between the same parties, whereby the vendor Geronimo de los Reyes leased from the vendee Maria B. Castro the same two parcels of land for a period of four (4) years, at a rental of P7,200 per annum, the rentals for the first two years payable in advance, and the rentals for the subsequent years to be payable yearly in advance during the first ten days of each year. The lessor acknowledged receipt of the advance rentals corresponding to the period from August 31, 1943 up to and including August 31, 1945.

    On September 30, 1947, Maria B. Castro executed an affidavit of consolidation, and, with said affidavit, presented the corresponding owner’s duplicate transfer certificates of title in the office of the register of deeds of Laguna. Acting upon said affidavit, the register of deeds cancelled transfer certificates of title Nos. 8254 and 8255, the originals of which were burned during the war, and transfer certificates of title Nos. 953 and 954 were issued in the name of Maria B. Castro covering the two parcels in question.

    On the basis of the two contracts aforecited, Maria B. Castro filed a complaint dated October 24, 1947, in the justice of the peace court of Calauan, Laguna (civil case No. 3), where the two parcels in question are located, against Geronimo de los Reyes, for unlawful detainer, claiming violation of the contract of lease in that since August 31, 1945, the defendant had failed to pay the yearly rentals of P7,200; that immediately after August 31, 1947, the plaintiff Maria B. Castro notified the defendant of the termination of the lease contract and repeatedly requested him to pay the back rents, to leave the premises and to return the property to her; but that, notwithstanding said demand, Geronimo failed and refused to leave the premises or pay the corresponding rentals due.

    Geronimo, in his answer to the complaint for unlawful detainer, claims that the contract or deed of sale with pacto de retro was not really a sale but a mere mortgage; that the amount of P120,000, involved in it, was all in Japanese military notes; that the contract of lease was a mere contrivance to represent the interest to be paid on the loan at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, and so as to legally maintain Geronimo in the possession of the two parcels notwithstanding the execution of the deed of sale; that the deed of sale with pacto de retro and the contract of lease did not represent the true and correct intention of the parties; that the period of redemption was expressly understood by the parties to mean the period within which the payment of the mortgage or indebtedness could be made, it being agreed by the parties that as long as payment of the yearly interest was made, the principal of the loan could be paid anytime; that since December 1944 until January 1945, Geronimo had repeatedly tendered to Maria the payment of the principal of the loan, but she refused to accept said payment, as a result of which Geronimo was forced to file a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila (civil case No. 3134) in January 1945 and to consign and deposit the sum of P120,000 with the clerk of court, the deposit being evidenced by official receipt No. 0607565, the purpose of the action being to have the contract between him and Maria B. Castro declared a mere mortgage, the loan having already been paid, and to have her execute a cancellation of said mortgage; and that, upon learning of Maria’s consolidation of title with the issuance of the corresponding transfer certificates of title of the two parcels of land, he filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, for the reconstitution of the record of civil case No. 3134, because the record of the same was destroyed during the war, but that his petition was denied by the court on the ground that the period for its reconstitution had already expired.

    In his answer, Geronimo further alleged that, inasmuch as the question of title to the lands in question was necessarily involved, the justice of the peace court had no power or jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action, and, lastly, that there is another action pending before the Court of First Instance of Manila between the same parties and over the same subject-matter, known as civil case No. 3910, this case having been filed by him on October 28, 1947 to take the place of civil case No. 3134.

    Because the Justice of the Peace Court of Calauan, Laguna, refused to dismiss the case of unlawful detainer, the present case of certiorari was filed in this Court, seeking to prevent the justice of the peace from proceeding with the trial of the unlawful detainer on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction.

    The question involved herein is whether or not in an action for unlawful detainer in a justice of the peace court, the defendant can deprive said court of its jurisdiction by filing an answer claiming title to the property involved, or otherwise raising the question of ownership.

    There is a long line of decisions of this Court holding that the mere fact that the defendant, in his answer, claims to be the owner of the property from which the plaintiff seeks to eject him, is not sufficient to divest the justice of the peace or the municipal court of its summary jurisdiction in actions for forcible entry and detainer, because, were the principle otherwise, the ends of justice would be frustrated by making the efficacy of this kind of action depend upon the defendant in all cases. Exception may be made when the evidence during the trial in said court shows that the question of title is actually involved and that the defendant’s contention, according to said evidence, is meritorious. (Supia and Batiaco v. Quintero and Ayala, 59 Phil., 312, 321; Aquino v. Deala, 63 Phil., 582, 593; Torres v. Peña, 78 Phil., 231; Peñalosa v. Garcia, 78 Phil., 245; Zapanta v. Bartolome and Chan-Liongco, 83 Phil., 433.) So, much depends upon the merit or lack of merit in the claim or contention of Geronimo about his ownership of the land, — this, to be determined during the trial in the justice of the peace court.

    But, without in any way prejudging the case, and on the basis only of the pleadings contained in the record of this case, it would seem that the petitioner Geronimo de los Reyes has not made out a prima facie case of the merit of his claim of ownership. To start with, there is in favor of Maria B. Castro, plaintiff in the unlawful detainer case, not only the deed of sale with pacto de retro in which the vendor (Geronimo) failed to make the repurchase within the period stipulated, but that there has been consolidation of title and issuance of the corresponding transfer certificates of title in the name of Maria B. Castro. We find the case of Supia and Batiaco v. Quintero and Ayala, supra., applicable to the present case. That case involved land sold under a deed of sale with right to repurchase, and this Court held that the purchaser under a contract with a right to repurchase is a vendee within the meaning of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that in an action of forcible entry and detainer, the mere filing of an answer claiming title to the premises would not divest the justice of the peace court of its jurisdiction.

    In view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby denied, with costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1823   May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO<br /><br />083 Phil 691


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED