G.R. No. 49129; June 30, 1944
CELESTINO AGUILAR, petitioner, vs. GUILLERMO CABRERA, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila and RAFAEL FLAMENO, respondents.
FACTS
On October 18, 1943, Rafael Flameno executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Celestino Aguilar for a parcel of land in Manila with its improvements for P57,000. A transfer certificate of title was issued in Aguilar’s name. Simultaneously, the parties entered into a written contract of lease, whereby Flameno, as lessee, could occupy the property for an initial 30 days free of charge, followed by an unextendible 60 days at a monthly rental of P150, with the obligation to vacate peacefully upon expiration. The total 90-day lease period expired on January 16, 1944, but Flameno refused to vacate despite demands.
Aguilar filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila, praying that Flameno be ordered to vacate, reimburse taxes paid, and pay damages and reasonable value for use and occupation. Flameno answered, alleging the deed of sale and lease were fictitious and simulated, and that he had filed a separate action in the Court of First Instance to annul the contracts, declare the transaction a mortgage, and cancel Aguilar’s title.
The respondent judge, upon Flameno’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, required memoranda on the jurisdictional issue without hearing evidence. Aguilar filed an amended complaint to conform to the Rules. The judge dismissed the original complaint and rejected the amended complaint, citing seven reasons, including that Aguilar never had possession and thus could not seek restoration, that possession could not be resolved without first resolving ownership, that the contracts were being impugned in the Court of First Instance, that damages claimed fell outside municipal court jurisdiction, and that the amendment substantially changed the action.
ISSUE
1. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to hear and decide the unlawful detainer case on the merits.
2. Whether the respondent Municipal Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the unlawful detainer case.
RULING
1. Yes, mandamus is the proper remedy. An appeal would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, as it would entail unnecessary delay and expense. A decision by the Court of First Instance on appeal would be confined to the jurisdictional question, and a probable further appeal to the Supreme Court would delay final adjudication. Mandamus is available under Section 3, Rule 67, to compel a tribunal to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law when it unlawfully neglects to do so and there is no other adequate remedy. If the case is one of unlawful detainer, Rule 72 specifically requires the judge to hear and decide it on the merits.
2. Yes, the Municipal Court has jurisdiction. The action is one for unlawful detainer, which is within the jurisdiction of the municipal court. To determine jurisdiction, the averments of the complaint and the character of the relief sought are primarily considered. The complaint alleges that Flameno occupied the premises as a lessee under a written contract and, after the expiration of the lease, refused to vacate. This constitutes a case of unlawful detainer under Section 1, Rule 72. The municipal court has jurisdiction to try such cases irrespective of any claim of ownership by the defendant. The court can receive evidence upon the defendant’s claim attacking the plaintiff’s title, but such evidence is received solely for the purpose of determining the issue of possession. If the evidence convinces the court that the plaintiff’s title is invalid, it may dismiss the complaint for failure of proof, not for lack of jurisdiction. The pendency of Flameno’s separate action in the Court of First Instance to annul the title is not a valid reason to deprive Aguilar of the summary remedy of ejectment. The two actions have different purposes. The judge erred in dismissing the case based on the reasons stated, particularly in overlooking the distinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, where prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not an indispensable requisite for a landlord or vendee. The damages claimed are merely accessory to the main action and are permitted by law to be recovered therein.
The writ of mandamus is granted, compelling the respondent judge to hear and decide the unlawful detainer case on the merits. Costs against the respondents.