G.R. No. 35 : February 11, 1902
MIGUEL FABIE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICIANA DE GUZMAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Miguel Fabie filed an action for eviction in the Court of First Instance of Binondo to recover possession of a basement story occupied by Feliciana de Guzman. Fabie alleged he was the owner of the property by virtue of being the universal heir under the will of the late Doña Tiburcia Ortiz, and that de Guzman was a tenant at will who had been given a month’s notice to vacate. During trial, de Guzman moved for a stay of proceedings, citing: (1) a pending injunction suit in the Court of First Instance of Tondo where she sought to retain possession, along with a motion to consolidate that case with the eviction; and (2) a criminal complaint for falsification of Doña Tiburcia Ortiz’s will filed in the Court of First Instance of Intramuros. The trial court did not rule on the stay and instead ordered de Guzman to answer the complaint. De Guzman then filed dilatory exceptions based on lack of jurisdiction and lis pendens (pendency of another action). The trial court overruled these exceptions. De Guzman did not file an answer on the merits, leading the court to render judgment in favor of Fabie. De Guzman appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in overruling the dilatory exceptions and in not staying the proceedings pending the resolution of the related injunction suit and criminal complaint.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The dilatory exceptions were properly overruled. First, the court had jurisdiction because the action for eviction (a possessory action) fell within its jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure and the property was located within its territorial bounds. Second, the exception of lis pendens was not available in a summary proceeding like an eviction case. Regarding the request for a stay, the Court held that a motion for consolidation of the eviction with the injunction suit was not a valid ground to suspend proceedings. Furthermore, de Guzman failed to prove that the criminal complaint for falsification of the will had been formally admitted by the prosecuting authorities, which was a necessary condition for a mandatory stay under the procedural rules. Her request to present new evidence on appeal regarding the criminal complaint was denied for lack of proper foundation and because she had the opportunity to present such evidence in the trial court but did not. The judgment of eviction in favor of Fabie was upheld.