GR L 21072; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21072; April 29, 1966
BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
On December 2, 1958, respondent Zacarias Rosales filed a forcible entry case (No. 356) in the Municipal Court of Butuan City against petitioners Bruno and Carmen Torralba and Francisco Lincuna. Rosales alleged that on October 28, 1958, the defendants, by means of force, intimidation, strategy, and stealth, entered and occupied the northern portion (about 400 square meters) of his land in Tomampi, Banza, Butuan City, and gathered its fruits. The municipal court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on December 3, 1958, directing the defendants to cease their acts and restore Rosales’s possession pending the case. On February 10, 1959, judgment was rendered in favor of Rosales. The defendants’ motions for new trial were denied, and their attempted appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time. Subsequently, on July 13, 1959, the Torralbas and their children initiated the present action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Agusan against Rosales, the municipal judge, and a deputy sheriff. They sought to annul the decision in the forcible entry case, the writ of execution, and a scheduled auction sale, arguing that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because title to the land was put in issue.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Court of Butuan City had jurisdiction over the forcible entry case, or whether it lost jurisdiction because the issue of title to the land was raised therein.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, holding that the municipal court had jurisdiction. The complaint in the forcible entry case was based solely on Rosales’s prior possession and the alleged forcible deprivation thereof by the Torralbas. This allegation was admitted in the Torralbas’ answer, with the only qualification being that they had exercised ownership rights over the property for many years before October 28, 1958. The Court ruled that the main issue in the forcible entry case was merely whether Rosales was forcibly dispossessed. The Torralbas’ invocation of their alleged title was done only to support their claim of a better right to possession, not to genuinely raise title as the central issue. Therefore, the municipal court retained jurisdiction over the ejectment case. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.