GR 29662; (July, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29662 July 30, 1971
FELINO SIMPAO, JR. and GUILLERMA MENDOZA, petitioners-appellants, vs. REMIGIO M. LILLES and ANGELITA DIZON, and HON. RICARDO P. TENSUAN, in his capacity as presiding Judge, Branch II, City Court of Quezon City, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
The spouses Lilles and Dizon entered into a “Contract to Sell” their house and lot to the spouses Simpao and Mendoza for P150,000.00. The terms included an initial payment of P120,650.00, with the balance of P29,350.00 due within six months. The contract stipulated that upon default in paying this balance, the agreement would become null and void, and the vendees were obligated to vacate the premises within ninety days, forfeiting P2,000.00 as liquidated damages. The vendees paid the initial amount, took possession, but defaulted on the balance. After written demand to vacate was ignored, the vendors filed an action for unlawful detainer in the Quezon City Court.
The vendees moved to dismiss the ejectment suit, challenging the city court’s jurisdiction. They argued the case involved rights and obligations under the contract that required adjudication by a Court of First Instance, making unlawful detainer an improper remedy. The city court denied the motion, and the Court of First Instance of Quezon City subsequently dismissed the vendees’ petition for certiorari and prohibition, upholding the city court’s jurisdiction. The vendees appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the City Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case filed by the vendors against the defaulting vendees.
RULING
Yes, the City Court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the action was properly one for unlawful detainer under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the “Contract to Sell” and the allegations in the complaint. The contract did not transfer ownership; it was expressly a conditional agreement to sell. A critical stipulation provided that upon the vendees’ failure to pay the balance, the agreement would become null and void, obligating them to vacate. The complaint sufficiently alleged the essential elements for unlawful detainer: (1) possession by the vendees by virtue of the contract, (2) expiration of their right to possess due to default, (3) demand to vacate, and (4) refusal to vacate, with the suit filed within one year from the accrual of the cause of action.
The Court held that the vendees’ defenses regarding the validity of the automatic rescission clause or other contractual rights were prematurely raised in a motion to dismiss based solely on the complaint. Such defenses, if any, pertain to the merits of their possession and must be properly raised in their answer for the city court to determine if they are within its jurisdiction to resolve or are so intertwined with the possession issue as to require referral to a higher court. On its face, the complaint presented a clear case of unlawful withholding of possession after the termination of a contractual right to hold, which is squarely within the city court’s summary jurisdiction. The order dismissing the petition for certiorari was affirmed.