G.R. No. L-24062. April 30, 1971.
PRESENTACION BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. ANITA F. FERNANDEZ, respondent.

FACTS

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila sold a lot on installment to Simeona Ricalde and Fructuosa Gonzales in 1952. Gonzales later assigned her rights to Ricalde. In 1957, respondent Anita Fernandez purchased Ricalde’s consolidated rights and obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. 49717 for the entire lot. Fernandez then demanded that petitioner Presentacion Bautista, who occupied a portion of the lot with a house, vacate the premises. Upon Bautista’s refusal, Fernandez filed an ejectment suit in the Manila Municipal Court in 1958. The municipal court dismissed the case, ruling the real issue was ownership. Fernandez appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), which also dismissed the case, stating Bautista could only be lawfully ejected via an accion publiciana or reinvindicatoria.
Subsequently, Fernandez instituted a separate action in the CFI, alleging ownership of the whole lot and praying for Bautista’s ejectment and payment of damages. Bautista, in her answer, asserted adverse ownership of the occupied portion, claiming she purchased it from Cornelia Quiocho, who allegedly acquired it from Marciana Librano with the conformity of the original co-buyers Ricalde and Gonzales. The CFI ruled in favor of Fernandez, declaring her the absolute owner and ordering Bautista to vacate and pay rentals. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting Bautista’s appeal to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the CFI had jurisdiction over the action filed by Fernandez, and (2) whether the action was barred for non-joinder of Bautista’s husband as an indispensable party.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, subject to the amendment of the complaint to implead Bautista’s husband. On jurisdiction, the Court held the action was properly within the CFI’s jurisdiction as a plenary action for recovery of ownership (accion reinvindicatoria), not a summary action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. Jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the complaint. Fernandez’s complaint alleged ultimate facts establishing her title and seeking a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, placing it beyond the exclusive, limited jurisdiction of inferior courts over ejectment cases. The previous dismissal of the ejectment suit did not constitute res judicata on the question of ownership, as judgments in ejectment cases conclusively settle only the issue of possession, not title.
Regarding the non-joinder of Bautista’s husband, the Court ruled it was a fatal defect. Bautista was a married woman, and the property subject of the litigation was presumably conjugal, as the sale to her occurred during marriage and the action affected property rights. Under the Rules of Court and relevant jurisprudence, a married woman must sue or be sued jointly with her husband, except in specific statutory instances not applicable here. The absence of the husband as a party-defendant deprived the court of jurisdiction over his person. However, this defect was curable by amendment. The Court ordered Fernandez to file an amended complaint impleading the husband, after which judgment would be entered affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.