December 1953 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > December 1953 Decisions >
G.R. No. 6005 December 29, 1953 - NER J. LOPEZ v. LUCIA Y. MATIAS VDA. DE TINIO, ET AL.
94 Phil 187:
94 Phil 187:
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 6005. December 29, 1953.]
NER J. LOPEZ, appellant, v. LUCIA Y. MATIAS VDA. DE TINIO and the HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO R. CABRERA, of the Municipal Court of Manila, Branch III., Respondent-Appellee.
D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
In a detainer action Lucia Y. Matias Vda. de Tinio sought to dispossess Ner J. Lopez of a lot located on Evangelista Street, Manila, for failure to pay the stipulated rentals. A motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it states no cause of action was denied. Whereupon, the defendant in the detainer case filed in the Court of First Instance a petition for a writ of certiorari with preliminary injunction. The Court denied the petition and from the order denying it he has appealed.
That the Municipal Court of Manila has jurisdiction to try and decide the action for detainer brought by the appellee Lucia Y. Matias Vda. de Tinio against the appellant cannot be disputed. It does not appear that the appellee attached to her complaint the contract of lease, upon which the appellant relies to ask for the dismissal of the complaint. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and whether a court has jurisdiction over an action brought to it is ascertained from and determined upon the ultimate material facts pleaded in the complaint. Matters of defense such as the one raised by the appellant may be pleaded in his answer. After issues have been joined the court must proceed to hear the evidence of both parties and render judgment. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that a denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is an interlocutory order and not appealable. As heretofore stated, there is no question that the municipal court of Manila has jurisdiction over an action for detainer, and if the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be appealed because it is interlocutory, much less would a petition for writ of certiorari lie. After an adverse judgment by the municipal court the defendant may appeal. That is his remedy and not the extraordinary one for a writ of certiorari.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.
That the Municipal Court of Manila has jurisdiction to try and decide the action for detainer brought by the appellee Lucia Y. Matias Vda. de Tinio against the appellant cannot be disputed. It does not appear that the appellee attached to her complaint the contract of lease, upon which the appellant relies to ask for the dismissal of the complaint. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and whether a court has jurisdiction over an action brought to it is ascertained from and determined upon the ultimate material facts pleaded in the complaint. Matters of defense such as the one raised by the appellant may be pleaded in his answer. After issues have been joined the court must proceed to hear the evidence of both parties and render judgment. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that a denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is an interlocutory order and not appealable. As heretofore stated, there is no question that the municipal court of Manila has jurisdiction over an action for detainer, and if the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be appealed because it is interlocutory, much less would a petition for writ of certiorari lie. After an adverse judgment by the municipal court the defendant may appeal. That is his remedy and not the extraordinary one for a writ of certiorari.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.
