GR 37452; (December, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37452 , December 23, 1933
Fermin Supia and Gavina Batioco, petitioners, vs. Jose M. Quintero, Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, and Juan L. Ayala, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Juan L. Ayala filed an action for unlawful detainer in the justice of the peace court against petitioners Fermin Supia and Gavina Batioco. Ayala alleged that the petitioners sold him a property with a right to repurchase within one year, during which they would occupy it as his tenants; upon their failure to repurchase, the lease terminated, but they unlawfully withheld possession. In their answer, the petitioners claimed the transaction was not a sale but a mortgage, thereby raising a question of title. The petitioners argue that this answer divested the justice of the peace of jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE
In an action for forcible entry and detainer (or unlawful detainer), does the mere filing of an answer claiming title to the premises divest the justice of the peace of jurisdiction?
RULING
No. The mere filing of an answer claiming title does not divest the justice of the peace of jurisdiction. The action for forcible entry and detainer is a statutory remedy designed to prevent breaches of the peace by providing a speedy means to restore possession, regardless of the actual condition of the title. Under Section 68 of Act No. 136 , as amended, the justice of the peace has original jurisdiction in such proceedings and may receive evidence on the question of title *solely for the purpose of determining the character and extent of possession and damages for detention*. The justice of the peace retains jurisdiction to proceed with the case and determine the issue of possession. If, upon hearing the evidence, it becomes clear that the question of title is so intertwined with the issue of possession that it cannot be resolved without first settling title, then the justice of the peace may dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners’ reliance on earlier cases is misplaced, as the prevailing doctrine, as established in subsequent decisions, is that jurisdiction is not automatically lost by the mere assertion of title in the answer.
AI Generated by Armztrong.