G.R. No. 47433 . January 20, 1941.
EUGENIANO BORJA, petitioner, vs. FAUSTINO SAMINIANO y AMBROSIO SANTOS, in his capacity as Acting Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, respondents.

FACTS

On March 2, 1934, petitioner Eugeniano Borja filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 218) against respondent Faustino Saminiano in the Justice of the Peace Court of Magarao, Camarines Sur. Borja sought Saminiano’s ejectment from leased land, payment of 220 cavans of palay (or its money equivalent) as back rent, and damages. At Borja’s instance, the court ordered the Provincial Sheriff to seize 200 cavans of palay harvested from the land and deliver them to Borja. The Sheriff complied, delivering 105 cavans’ worth of palay to Borja. On March 28, 1934, the Justice of the Peace Court decided in favor of Borja, ordering Saminiano to restore possession of the land and pay 220 cavans of palay or its value of P264. Saminiano appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. 5969). On March 17, 1937, the CFI motu proprio dismissed the appealed case because Saminiano, as appellant, failed to appear or file a demurrer or answer, and Borja, as appellee, took no steps to prosecute the case. On December 1, 1938 (over 1 year and 8 months after dismissal), Saminiano filed a motion in the same CFI case asking the court to require Borja to return the 220 cavans of palay he received from the Sheriff. The CFI, in an order dated December 23, 1938, denied the motion, ruling it had lost jurisdiction over the matter and that it was res adjudicata. After denial of his motion for reconsideration, Saminiano filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In a decision promulgated on October 6, 1939, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and ordered the CFI of Camarines Sur to act on Saminiano’s petition and order Borja to return 220 cavans of palay or its value of P264. Complying with this appellate court order, the respondent Judge, in an order dated January 24, 1940, required Borja to return the palay or its value within 10 days. As Borja failed to comply, the respondent Judge issued a writ of execution for said order. Borja then filed the present original petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Court of Appeals’ decision and the subsequent CFI orders.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals had original jurisdiction to take cognizance of and grant the petition for certiorari filed by respondent Saminiano.
2. Whether the subsequent orders issued by the respondent Judge of the CFI (dated January 24, 1940, and the writ of execution) are valid.

RULING

1. No, the Court of Appeals lacked original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, citing its precedent in Hon. Arsenio Roldan, et al. vs. Pedro Villaroman, et al., G.R. No. 46825 , held that the Court of Appeals lacks original jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari and mandamus, except in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. In this case, the CFI order denying Saminiano’s motion (dated December 23, 1938) was not appealed to the Court of Appeals, nor could it be directly appealed there because the issue raised involved the CFI’s jurisdiction—a question that, under Section 138(3) of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 3 , falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
2. No, the CFI orders are illegal and void. Since the Court of Appeals acted without original jurisdiction in issuing its decision and peremptory writ, the orders issued by the respondent CFI Judge in compliance with that void decision are consequently illegal and cannot be sustained.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It annulled and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in its Case No. 5211, the CFI order dated January 24, 1940, and the subsequent writ of execution. Costs were taxed against respondent Faustino Saminiano.