GR L 4145; (January, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4145: DOMINGO GUTIERREZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIANO ROSARIO and BERNARDO ROSARIO, defendants-appellees. January 28, 1910
FACTS:
Domingo Gutierrez (plaintiff) initiated a forcible entry and detainer action in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Carlos, Pangasinan, to recover possession of a parcel of land from Mariano Rosario and Bernardo Rosario (defendants). The Justice of the Peace dismissed the action, prompting the plaintiff to appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI, after hearing the evidence, found that the defendants had been in possession of the land for more than one year prior to the commencement of the action. Applying Section 80 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, the CFI concluded that the action was improperly commenced before the Justice of the Peace, as that court lacked jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer cases where the defendant’s possession had exceeded one year. The plaintiff then appealed this CFI judgment to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Did the Court of First Instance err in holding that the Justice of the Peace Court lacked jurisdiction over a forcible entry and detainer case when the defendants had been in possession of the land for more than one year prior to the filing of the action?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
The Court reiterated that an action for forcible entry and detainer cannot be commenced in the court of a justice of the peace if the defendants have been in possession of the land for a period of more than one year prior to the commencement of the action. In such a scenario, the justice of the peace court does not have jurisdiction to try the cause. The Court clarified that the CFI’s decision did not determine whether the plaintiff was ultimately entitled to possession, but rather affirmed that the specific action, due to the lapse of more than one year of possession by the defendants, was outside the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court. The Court also held that a forcible entry and detainer action, once commenced in the justice of the peace court, cannot be transformed into an action of ejectment by an amendment of the pleadings in the Court of First Instance. This ruling does not preclude the plaintiff from pursuing an appropriate action (e.g., an action of ejectment) in the proper court to assert his right to possession.