GR 36208; (September, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36208 September 18, 1981
AMBO ALILAYA, petitioner, vs. MARCELA DE ESPAÑOLA, assisted by her husband TEOPISTO ESPAÑOLA, THE HONORABLE PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, General Santos City and THE HONORABLE ARMIE E. ELMA, ETC., respondents.
FACTS
This petition originated from a forcible entry and damages case decided by the City Court of General Santos City in favor of petitioner Ambo Alilaya. The City Court dismissed the counterclaim of the private respondents, Marcela de Española and Teopisto Española. The private respondents appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of South Cotabato. The CFI, presided by Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas, reversed the City Court’s decision. The CFI held that the City Court acted without jurisdiction because the issue of ownership was intertwined with the issue of possession in the pleadings and evidence.
Petitioner Alilaya moved for reconsideration and/or dismissal of the appeal, invoking Republic Act No. 5967 . This law grants city courts concurrent jurisdiction with the CFI in ejection cases where the question of ownership is brought in issue, and mandates that such appeals go directly to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. The CFI denied the motion. Petitioner then filed an “Urgent Motion for Execution” with the City Court, arguing its decision had become final as the appeal to the CFI was improper. City Judge Armie E. Elma denied this motion, stating jurisdiction now lay with the CFI.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance properly assumed jurisdiction over the appeal from the City Court’s decision in the forcible entry case where the issue of ownership was intertwined with possession.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the CFI’s decision and order. The Court ruled that the CFI committed a grave abuse of discretion and acted without jurisdiction. Under the clear provisions of Republic Act No. 5967 , specifically Section 3(c), city courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the CFI in ejection cases where ownership is raised in the pleadings, and such issue must be resolved together with possession. Consequently, Section 5 of the same Act provides that appeals from city court decisions in such cases lie directly with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, not the CFI.
Since the CFI itself correctly found that ownership was intertwined with possession, the City Court of General Santos City properly exercised its concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, the private respondents’ appeal should have been lodged with the appellate courts. The CFI’s only proper course was to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Its assumption of appellate authority and reversal of the City Court’s decision was a jurisdictional error, rendering its decision null and void. The Supreme Court declared the City Court’s decision final and executory, as no valid appeal was perfected. The order of City Judge Elma denying execution was sustained, but without prejudice to a new motion for execution based on the finality of the City Court’s decision.