Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1980 > November 1980 Decisions > G.R. No. 54324-28 November 19, 1980 - JASMIN S. NOGOY v. FILEMON MENDOZA, JR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 54324-28. November 19, 1980.]

JASMIN S. NOGOY, Special Administratrix, Intestate Estate of the late Leonarda O. Nogoy, etc., Petitioner-Appellant, v. CITY JUDGE FILEMON MENDOZA, JR., Branch III, Caloocan City, JOSEFINA FLORES, FLORENCIA YAP, TSINA LEE and ALING LEE, JAMES LEE and DAVID ODULIO, Respondents-Appellees.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Respondent city judge in his decision dated May 29, 1980 dismissed the five ejectment cases filed by the petitioner against the private respondents on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because the cases involve "more the issue of ownership than possession and should have been filed" in the Court of First Instance (p. 50, Rollo).chanrobles law library : red

That decision is wrong because Republic Act No. 5967, which took effect on June 21, 1969, enlarged the jurisdiction of city courts by providing in its section 3 that city courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance "in ejection cases where the question of ownership is brought in issue in the pleadings" and that in such a case "the issue of ownership shall therein be resolved in conjunction with the issue of possession" (See Contreras v. Villaraza, G. R. No. 53372, August 21, 1980). The issue of ownership was raised in defendants’ answer in the city court.

Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5967 provides that the decision of a city court in civil actions, other than those falling within its original exclusive jurisdiction, shall be "directly appealable to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, as the case may be." The instant certiorari case may be regarded as an appeal from respondent judge’s decision pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440, a law not well-known to some law practitioners and judges.

Petitioners’s counsel in his motion for reconsideration called respondent judge’s attention to the concurrent jurisdiction of the city court of Caloocan City and the Court of First Instance to decide the issue of ownership in an ejectment case but petitioner’s counsel cited the wrong law. He cited Republic Act No. 1657, a law creating barrios in the municipality of Mabini, Davao. Hence, respondent judge was not convinced by that motion for reconsideration. He denied it.

It is evident that because of Republic Act No. 5967 the rule in section 4, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, formerly section 4, Rule 72 of the 1940 Rules of Court, that "evidence of title to the land or building may be received solely for the purpose of determining the character and extent of possession and damages for detention", does not apply to the ejectment cases filed in city courts which are now empowered to decide the issue of ownership.

With respect to respondent judge’s finding that the petitioner’s cause of action suffers from "fatal jurisdictional defects" because there were no demands to vacate (p. 49, Rollo), the petitioner alleged that her counsel made a formal demand to vacate as shown in his letter dated June 17, 1978 wherein the private respondents were required to "vacate the premises after five days from receipt of this demand letter" (p. 53, Rollo). The city court should take into account that demand letter.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, respondent judge’s decision is set aside. He is directed to try and decide the issue ownership in the five ejectment cases. Costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, 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






November-1980 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 2268-MJ November 7, 1980 - RICARDO ESCARDA v. JACINTO MANALO

  • G.R. No. 53466 November 10, 1980 - RURAL BANK OF OROQUIETA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 54169 November 10, 1980 - ROSARIO S. QUE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 761 November 17, 1980 - ESTER FLORES v. LUIS CASTILLO REYNO

  • A.C. No. 1681 November 17, 1980 - MODESTA RODRIGUEZ v. PEDRO TAGALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1171-MJ November 17, 1980 - MARCELINO SINGSON, SR. v. PABLO L. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. 1387-MJ November 17, 1980 - LOURDES FLOR v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-1549 November 17, 1980 - RAUL C. BRIZ v. FAUSTINO ENCINARES, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26823 November 17, 1980 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. SMITH, BELL & CO. (PHIL.) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38635 November 17, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL HAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-41686 November 17, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL

  • G.R. No. 50097 November 17, 1980 - CONTINENTAL BAZAR LABOR UNION-PAFLU v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. 50711 November 17, 1980 - SIMEON ARAMBURO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51269 November 17, 1980 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUFO TOMELDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51944 November 17, 1980 - AGAPITA OPEÑA VDA. DE IMPERIAL v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 52153 & 52154 November 17, 1980 - KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52242 November 17, 1980 - MIGUEL R. UNSON III v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54324-28 November 19, 1980 - JASMIN S. NOGOY v. FILEMON MENDOZA, JR.

  • A.M. No. 1541-MJ November 21, 1980 - FIDEL MORTA, SR. v. CIPRIANO B. ALVIZO, JR.

  • A.M. No. 2044-CFI November 21, 1980 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. L-29485 November 21, 1980 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AYALA SECURITIES CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29576 November 21, 1980 - FRANCISCO COCOTANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. L-33303 November 21, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-39712 November 21, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GOMEZ SALIGAN

  • G.R. No. L-53619. November 21, 1980 - MODESTA SABENIANO v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-260 November 28, 1980 - FLORENTINO R. CALAYAG v. RUFINO DE ASAS

  • G.R. No. L-24238 November 28, 1980 - JOSE SANTOS v. LORENZO J. LIWAG

  • G.R. No. L-24852 November 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO TALAY

  • G.R. No. L-30019 November 28, 1980 - AGRIPINA BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-30780 November 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO PAHIL

  • G.R. No. L-32949 November 28, 1980 - JOSE D. SANTOS v. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-33296 November 28, 1980 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-35148 November 28, 1980 - CONSTANCIO JAUGAN v. VICENTE P BULLECER

  • G.R. No. L-43833 November 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO NAVARRETE

  • G.R. No. L-49910 November 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO AQUIAPAS

  • G.R. No. 52830 November 28, 1980 - ANTONIO O. SINGCO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 54039 November 28, 1980 - GUILLERMO S. ARCENAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 54043 November 28, 1980 - BANGUED WATER DISTRICT v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-54641 November 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-36008 November 28, 1980 - MAURO G. AGDA v. CRISPIN N. SAN JUAN