Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > January 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6314 January 22, 1954 - PEDRO TEODORO v. AGAPITO BALATBAT ET AL.

094 Phil 247:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6314. January 22, 1954.]

PEDRO TEODORO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AGAPITO BALATBAT ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

T. C. Martin & A. B. Reyes for Appellants.

Jose B. Bautista for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


EJECTMENT; "PACTO DE RETRO" SALE; JURISDICTION OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT. — A defendant in a case of forcible entry and detainer in a justice of the peace court may not divest that court of its jurisdiction by merely claiming ownership of the property involved. If, however, the plaintiffs pretended right to the possession of the property in dispute ultimately rests upon his claim of ownership, a claim based upon a purported contract of sale with right of repurchase admittedly signed by defendants but alleged by them to be a mere simulation to cloak a mortgage obligation tainted with usury, in the final analysis the case hinges on a question of ownership and is for that reason not cognizable by the justice of the peace court.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


This is an appeal from the Court of First Instance of Bulacan certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals for the reason that it involves a purely legal question.

The case originated in the Justice of the Peace Court of Hagonoy, Bulacan, with the filing of a complaint for the recovery of possession of two parcels of land and a house thereon which were allegedly leased by plaintiff to defendants and which the latter refused to vacate after the expiration of the lease despite repeated demands. Answering the complaint, defendants denied the alleged lease, and setting up title in themselves, alleged that the house and land in question were merely mortgaged by them to plaintiff as a security for a usurious loan, but that to cover up the usury the transaction was given the form of a fictitious and simulated contract of sale with right of repurchase, which they consented to sign on the assurance that it was to be a mere evidence of indebtedness and would not be enforced as a true pacto de retro sale. After hearing the evidence presented by the parties, the justice of the peace rendered his decision dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction on the theory that the question of possession could not be resolved without first deciding that of ownership. From this decision plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. There defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the court had no jurisdiction to try the case on the merits. But the motion was denied, whereupon, defendants filed their answer to the complaint and plaintiff, on his part, filed his reply to the answer. On the case coming up for hearing defendants in open court again raised the question of jurisdiction. But the court rendered an order holding that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction and remanded the case to that court for trial on the merits. It is from that order that defendants have appealed.

It has been held time and again that the defendant in a case of forcible entry and detainer in a justice of the peace court may not divest that court of its jurisdiction by merely claiming ownership of the property involved. It is, however, equally settled that "if it appears during the trial that, by the nature of the proof presented, the question of possession can not properly be determined without settling that of ownership, then the jurisdiction of the court is lost and the action should be dismissed." (II Moran, Rules of Court, 1952 ed., p. 299, and cases therein cited.) So it is held that where plaintiff’s claim to possession "is predicated upon a deed of sale alleged to have been executed by the defendant, who in turn alleges said document to be fictitious and fraudulent, and there are no circumstances showing that this claim of defendant is unfounded, the justice of the peace loses its jurisdiction." (Ibid.)

The evidence presented in the justice of the peace court in the present case is not before us. But from the answer filed by the defendants in the Court of First Instance and plaintiff’s reply thereto, it is evident that plaintiff’s pretended right to the possession of the property in dispute ultimately rests upon his claim of ownership, a claim based upon a purported contract of sale with right of repurchase admittedly signed by defendants but claimed by them to be a mere simulation to cloak a mortgage obligation tainted with usury. If this contract was really a sale subject to repurchase and the repurchase has, as alleged by the plaintiff, not been made within the time stipulated, plaintiff would already be the owner of the property sold and, as such, entitled to its possession. On the other hand, if the contract was, as defendants claim, in reality a mere mortgage, then the defendants would still be the owner of the property and could not, therefore, be regarded as mere lessees. In the final analysis then, the case hinges on a question of ownership and is for that reason not cognizable by the justice of the peace court.

The case at bar is to be distinguished from that of Sevilla v. Tolentino, 51 Phil., 333, cited by the learned trial judge in the order appealed from. In that case, defendant was deemed to have impliedly admitted being lessee of the property in dispute and could not for that reason be allowed to claim ownership thereof in the same action. Such is not the situation of the present defendants, who have in their answer denied the alleged lease.

As the justice of the peace court of Hagonoy had no jurisdiction to try the case on the merits, the order appealed from remanding the case to that court must be, as it is hereby, revoked; and, in accord with the precedent established in Cruz Et. Al. v. Garcia Et. Al., 45 Off. Gaz., 227, and the decisions therein cited, the case is ordered returned to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for that court to proceed with the trial in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. With costs against the appellee.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






January-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6404 January 12, 1954 - PEDRO CALANO v. PEDRO CRUZ

    094 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-5064 January 14, 1954 - CONSUELO G. GUANZON ET AL. v. ROBERTO LLANTADA

    094 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5810 January 18, 1954 - FRANCISCO MARASIGAN v. FELICISIMO RONQUILLO

    094 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-5684 January 22, 1954 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PELAGIO MOSTASESA and PAULINO DUMAGAT

    094 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-6137 January 22, 1954 - GAUDENCIO MANIGRAS v. ESTEBAN DE GUZMAN and RAFAEL MACATANGAS

    094 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. L-6314 January 22, 1954 - PEDRO TEODORO v. AGAPITO BALATBAT ET AL.

    094 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-5561 January 26, 1954 - LAZARO MONDOÑIDO v. PRESCA ALAURA VDA. DE RODA

    094 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-6342 January 26, 1954 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LAUREANO ATENDIDO

    094 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-6415 January 26, 1954 - CO TE HUE v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    094 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. L-4916 January 27, 1954 - 4ABLAZA TRANS. CO., INC. v. PROVINCIAL GOV’T. OF BULACAN

    094 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-6496 January 27, 1954 - LEOPOLDO R. JALANDONI v. DEMETRIO N. SARCON

    094 Phil 266

  • Adm. No. 104 January 28, 1954 - BENITA S. BALINON v. CELESTINO M. DE LEON ET AL.

    094 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-5412 January 28, 1954 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. MAXIMO M. KALAW ET AL.

    094 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5552 January 28, 1954 - ANTONIO DELUMEN ET AL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    094 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-5623 January 28, 1954 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. REG. OF DEEDS OF MANILA

    094 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-5775 January 28, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN PIAMONTE

    094 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. L-5984 & L-5985 January 28, 1954 - FRANCISCO SEGOVIA v. PRISCILA GARCIA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 300

  • G.R. Nos. L-5841 & L-5842 January 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CUARESMA

    094 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-6589 January 29, 1954 - ELIGIO CARAECLE v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and FELIX DEL CASTILLO

    094 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-5736 January 30, 1954 - VALENTIN ALIGARBES v. JUAN AGUILAR

    094 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-5937 January 30, 1954 - PEDRO MENDOZA v. JUSTINA CAPARROS Y OTROS

    094 Phil 317