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-2132   May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO. <br /><br />083 Phil 840

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2132. May 30, 1949.]

    JUAN SAVINADA, Petitioner, v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by its managing partner, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., and PRUDENCIO M. ENCOMIENDA, Judge of Municipal Court of Quezon City, Respondents.

    Paredes, Diaz & Poblador and Jose A. Buendia for Petitioner.

    Araneta & Araneta for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; PLEADING AND PRACTICE; COMPLAINT, SUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATIONS. — The doctrine laid down in the case of Co Tiamco v. Diaz (75 Phil., 672), is reiterated to the effect that "in an action for unlawful detainer, a simple allegation that defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff, as provided in Form 1 appended to Rules of Court, is sufficient, for the words ’unlawfully withholding.’ imply possession on the part of the defendant, which was legal in the beginning having no other source than a contract, express or implied, possession which has later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant. Thus, a form of pleading is devised which is brief and concise, and through apparently too general, it is so worded as clearly to apprise the defendant of the substance of the claim. Other details like the one-year period within which the action should be brought, and the demand when required to be made by the Rules, must be proved but need not be alleged in the complaint.

    2. ID.; ID.; DEFENDANT’S MERE ALLEGATION OF TITLE IN THE ANSWER WILL NOT DIVEST JURISDICTION OF THE INFERIOR COURT; DOCTRINES REITERATED. — The mere filing of an answer, in an unlawful detainer case, claiming title to the premises involved or raising a question of ownership, will not divest the justice of the peace or municipal court of its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. (Supra v. Quintero, 59 Phi., 312.) Said court would lose jurisdiction only if the evidence presented during the trial should show that the question of title is necessarily involved in the litigation and that by the nature of the proof presented the question of possession cannot be properly determined without adjudicating the question of title. (Torres v. Peña, 78 Phil., 231; Peñalosa v. Garcia, 78 Phil., 245; De los Reyes v. Elepaño, 83 Phil., 691, and cases therein cited.)


    D E C I S I O N


    OZAETA, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari to annul an order of the respondent judge of the municipal court of Quezon City denying the petitioner’s motion to quash a complaint for unlawful detainer on the alleged grounds (1) that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and (2) that the complaint stated no cause of action.

    It appears that the respondent J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., filed an action against the petitioner Juan Savinada for unlawful detainer, alleging, insofar as pertinent to the issue herein, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "3. That the plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner of that certain real estate known as the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision situated in Quezon City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37686 issued by the register of deeds of the City of Manila;

    "4. That the defendant is unlawfully withholding from the plaintiff the possession of a portion of the above-mentioned property, said portion being described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A ricefield and vegetable tract situated in Barrio Tatalon, Quezon City, being a portion of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, covered by the above-mentioned Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37686. sounded on the N., by a vacant ricefield cultivated by a certain person known only as Kiener; on the S., by a vacant ricefield cultivated by Hermogenes Placido; on the W., by a ricefield cultivated by Jorge Placido; and on the E., by España Street, containing an area of three hectares, more or less."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The herein petitioner filed a motion to dismiss that complaint contending (1) that he is the exclusive owner of the land in question and (2) that the complaint does not allege the date when the defendant entered the premises in question nor the manner of such entry.

    In his order of February 14, 1948, the respondent judge sustained the second ground of the motion and dismissed the complaint. But upon motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff in which it invoked the decision of this court in the case of Co Tiamco v. Diaz (75 Phil., 672), the respondent judge reconsidered and set aside the order of dismissal and required the defendant to answer the complaint.

    The main issue involved herein is the sufficiency of the allegation of paragraph 4 of the complaint hereinabove quoted. It is apparent that said allegation is patterned after Form No. 1 prescribed by this court as a model of a "complaint for ejectment" and appended to the Rules of Court. In the above-cited case of Co Tiamco v. Diaz the same question was raised, and this court sustained the sufficiency of such allegation in the following language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "There is no fairness in holding a form to be insufficient after all the litigants were told by our Rules to follow it. It is said that a form is but an illustration, a guide, or an outline containing a general idea of what may be done. But obviously, it cannot be a good illustration when it leaves something in the dark. It cannot be a light guide when it misguides. And it cannot be an honest outline when it is incomplete and is deceitful. A form provided by law is a part of that law and, as such, it must be respected, regardless of what we might desire as to how it should be. After all, our duty is to construe the law and not our will, for in administering the law we have no will but the will of the law. In the instant case, the form provided by the rules is not a figment of the mind but a practical expression of a fundamental policy. It discloses that in an action for forcible entry a simple allegation in the complaint that defendant turned the plaintiff out of possession is sufficient, for, undoubtedly, the words ’turned out’ imply force in the taking of the possession. (Mediran v. Villanueva, 37 Phil., 752, 756.) And in an action for unlawful detainer, a simple allegation that defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is made sufficient, for the words ’unlawfully withholding’ imply possession on the part of the defendant, which was legal in the beginning having no other course than a contract, express or implied, possession which has later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant. Thus, a form of a pleading is deviced which is brief and concise, and though apparently too general, it is so worded as clearly to apprise the defendant of the substance of the claim. Other details like the one year period within which the action should be brought, and the demand when required to be made by the Rules, must be proved but need not be alleged in the complaint." (42 Off. Gaz., 1179.)

    In the absence of compelling reasons, we are not inclined to disturb that ruling.

    With regard to petitioner’s contention that the municipal court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action because the defendant alleged in his answer that he is the owner of the land in question, suffice it to advert to the well-settled jurisprudence that the mere filing of an answer, in an unlawful detainer case, claiming title to the premises involved or raising a question of ownership, will not divest the justice of the peace or municipal court of its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. (Supra v. Quintero, 59 Phil., 312.) Said court would lose jurisdiction only if the evidence presented during the trial should show that the question of title is necessarily involved in the litigation and that by the nature of the proof presented the question of possession cannot be properly determined without adjudicating the question of time. (Torres v. Peña, 78 Phil., 231; Peñalosa v. Garcia, 78 Phil., 245; De los Reyes v. Elepaño, 83 Phil., 691, and cases therein cited.)

    The petition is denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Feria, J., dissents.

    G.R. No. L-2132   May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO. <br /><br />083 Phil 840


    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