Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > February 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1808 February 14, 1948 - FAUSTINO FULGENCIO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

080 Phil 224:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-1808. February 14, 1948.]

FAUSTINO FULGENCIO, Petitioner, v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, Judge of First Instance of Manila, MARIA APE, VENANCIO ALCANTARA and THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, Respondents.

Marcelino Lontok and Lastrilla & Alidio for Petitioner.

Gamboa & Enverga for respondents Ape and Alcantara.

SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; MUNICIPAL COURT; JURISDICTION OVER DETAINER ACTIONS; PLEA OF A PENDING ACTION TO COMPEL RESALE OF PROPERTY IN DISPUTE. — The municipal court had jurisdiction to try and decide the detainer case, notwithstanding the defendant’s plea that he had brought an action in the proper court to compel the resale to him of the property involved in the detainer case, as said plea was an admission that the title thereto was not vested in him.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGALITY OF RENTAL. — The illegality of the rental fixed by the municipal court does not have the effect of divesting the municipal court of the jurisdiction it had to try and decide the detainer case. Such illegality may be raised and corrected by the Court of First Instance to which the case has been brought on appeal, or criminal charges may be preferred against the law violators.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


For failure of the petitioner to file a supersedeas bond and to pay or deposit the amount fixed in the judgment rendered by the municipal court as monthly rental or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of a lot and the house erected thereon during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent court, upon motion, ordered the execution of the judgment.

Petitioner seeks to annul the writ of execution by this original action, on the alleged ground that the judgment of the municipal court ordered executed is null and void; that the execution of said judgment must of necessity be null and void; and that the respondent court in ordering the execution of the judgment exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a grave abuse of discretion.

It is alleged that the question of jurisdiction was raised in the answer filed by the petitioner in the detainer case, in which he pleaded that, before the complaint for detainer was filed against him, he had brought an action in the proper court to compel the respondents Alcantara and Ape and their predecessors in interest, the Litonjuas, to re-sell to him the lot and the house erected thereon upon payment of the repurchase price — the sum of P45,000 in Japanese war notes (Civil Case No. 2563 Court of First Instance of Manila; Exhibit D).

Whether the petitioner is entitled to repurchase the lot and the house erected thereon, is the controversy that will have to be decided by the Court of First Instance of Manila in civil case No. 2563. By bringing such action, petitioner admits that he had sold the lot and the house erected thereon. Granting that petitioner has the right to repurchase the property, he cannot invoke it until after the competent court shall have rendered judgment as prayed for by him. Hence the allegation in the detainer case that he had brought an action in the proper court to compel the re-sale to him of the lot and the house erected thereon, did not raise the question of title to the property and for that reason did not remove the case from the jurisdiction of the municipal court. As already stated, the plea of another pending action to compel the re-sale to the petitioner of the property involved in the detainer case is an admission that the title thereto is not vested in him. Such being the case, the municipal court had jurisdiction to try and decide the detainer case. The petitioner appealed from the judgment rendered by the municipal court, and the appeal is now pending in the respondent court. It is in this last mentioned court where the writ of execution complained of was issued, because the petitioner had failed to file a supersedeas bond and to pay or deposit the amount fixed in the judgment rendered by the municipal court as monthly rental or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises during the pendency of the appeal. The respondent court, in ordering the execution of the judgment referred to for failure of the petitioner to file a supersedeas bond and to pay or deposit monthly rental, did precisely what the rules of court require it to do. Lack of means is the excuse given by the petitioner for his failure to file a supersedeas bond and to pay or deposit the amount fixed in the judgment rendered by the municipal court as monthly rental or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises during the pendency of the appeal; but such an excuse is belied by his avowed ability to pay the repurchase price of the property, as alleged and offered by him in the action to compel respondents Alcantara and Ape and the latters’ predecessors in interest, the Litonjuas, to se-sell the property to him, unless he intend or propose to pay the P45,000 offered for the repurchase of the property by means of Japanese war notes.

If, as claimed by the petitioner, the amount fixed by the municipal court as monthly rental or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises is illegal, because it violates the House Rental Law, the question may be raised and the illegality corrected by the Court of First Instance to which the case has been brought on appeal, or criminal charges may be preferred against the law violators; but granting for the sake of argument that the amount fixed by the municipal court as monthly rental or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises is illegal, such an illegality does not have the effect of divesting the last named court of the jurisdiction it had to try and decide the detainer case.

Moran, C.J., 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






February-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1782 February 2, 1948 - FIDEL B. FORTUNATO v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-725 February 3, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO APARATO

    080 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-869 February 9, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PASTOR TAN MATEO, ET AL.

    080 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1357 February 9, 1948 - MARIANO R. LACSON v. C. N. HODGES, ET AL.

    080 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-1788 February 9, 1948 - MATIAS NAREDO v. NICASIO YATCO

    080 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-1808 February 14, 1948 - FAUSTINO FULGENCIO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    080 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. L-1313 February 16, 1948 - ROSALINA CUNANAN v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    080 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-1424 February 17, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO CARPIZO

    080 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-1651 February 17, 1948 - AGAPITO B. ANDAL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    080 Phil 236

  • R-Civil No. 1740 February 18, 1948 - FELISA R. DE VICTORIO v. JACOB VOLZ

    080 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-1273 February 19, 1948 - JOSE F. SINGSON v. VICENTE Q. QUINTILLAN, ET AL.

    080 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-1636 February 24, 1948 - VICENTE MADRIGAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    080 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-1692 February 24, 1948 - AMADO SOROÑGON, ET AL. v. QUERUBE MAKALINTAL

    080 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-1988 February 24, 1948 - JESUS MIQUIABAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    080 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 48411 February 24, 1948 - ELKS CLUB v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA

    080 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-538 February 25, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO OLAVIDES ET AL.

    080 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1806 February 25, 1948 - ALFONSO PAGKALINAWAN, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS

    080 Phil 281

  • G.R. Nos. L-683 & L-684 February 26, 1940

    EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANASTACIO IMSON, ET AL.

    080 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-1612 February 26, 1948 - JORGE B. VARGAS v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    080 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-1828 February 26, 1948 - JOSE SILVESTRE v. CONRADO SANCHEZ

    080 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1247 February 27, 1948 - HOSPICIA BLAY, ET AL. v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    080 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-1317 February 27, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABRAHAM LOGO

    080 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-1566 February 27, 1948 - CIPRIANO OLAVIANO v. PRIMITIVO ORIELL

    080 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. L-1631 February 27, 1948 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. ROMAN OZAETA

    080 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-1853 February 27, 1948 - GRACIANO SITCHON, ET AL. v. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ET AL.

    080 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-1870 February 27, 1948 - ANTONIO C. OGNIR v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-1128 February 28, 1948 - GERARDO M. ALFONSO v. NICASIO YATCO

    080 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-1719 February , 28, 1948 - CANUTO VALIENTE v. JUEZ DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE TARLAC

    080 Phil 415