GR L 19631; (January, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19631; January 31, 1964
PASTOR D. AGO, petitioner, vs. HON. TEOFILO B. BUSLON, District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, MONICA URBIZTONDO and PEDRO ORCULLO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent spouses Urbiztondo and Pedro Orcullo filed a complaint against petitioner Pastor D. Ago in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Surigao to recover rentals for his use of a portion of their land as a private road for logging operations. They prayed for payment of accrued rentals, damages for destroyed trees, attorney’s fees, and an order to close the road if rentals were unpaid. In his answer, Ago contested the court’s jurisdiction, alleging the road traversed another person’s land, and set up a compulsory counterclaim for P37,000 in damages. The hearing was set for October 11, 1960. Ago’s counsel moved for postponement due to a conflicting Manila hearing, but the motion was denied. A subsequent telegram from Ago requesting another postponement was also denied for lack of service on opposing counsel and because the respondents and their counsel were already present. The court proceeded to receive the respondents’ evidence ex parte and rendered a decision against Ago eight months later.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of certiorari is a proper remedy to challenge the CFI’s decision, given the petitioner’s failure to appeal, and whether the CFI validly acquired jurisdiction over the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case. The legal logic is twofold. First, on procedural grounds, the extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The petitioner received notice of the order denying his motion for reconsideration on January 6, 1962, but filed the certiorari action only on April 6, 1962, long after the reglementary period to appeal had expired. Certiorari is not a remedy for omission or oversight in pursuing the ordinary appeal process, which was plain, speedy, and adequate.
Second, on jurisdictional grounds, the CFI validly exercised jurisdiction. Although the respondents’ main claim for rentals and damages was below P5,000—which would normally fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of an inferior court—the case involved a determination of title to land, a matter exclusively within the original competence of the CFI. Furthermore, the petitioner’s compulsory counterclaim for P37,000 in damages, arising from the same transaction, independently conferred jurisdiction upon the CFI. Jurisprudence supports that a court can sustain jurisdiction when a compulsory counterclaim exceeds the jurisdictional amount, even if the original claim does not. Therefore, the CFI acted within its jurisdiction, and the petition for certiorari was improper.