G.R. No. L-10311; June 29, 1957
Emilio J. Andres and Paz Basa Andres, petitioners, vs. Hon. E. Soriano, Ruperto Lising and Nenita Reyes Lising, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Emilio J. Andres and Paz Basa Andres, filed an action for detainer against the respondents, Ruperto Lising and Nenita Reyes Lising, in the Municipal Court of Manila. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the Lisings to vacate the premises, pay monthly rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Lisings appealed this judgment to the Court of First Instance of Manila by filing the requisite notice of appeal and bonds. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners moved for execution of the Municipal Court’s judgment, alleging that the Lisings failed to pay or deposit the rental for December 1955 within the first ten days of January 1956. The Lisings objected. The Court of First Instance denied the motion for execution, ruling that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction because the question of ownership or title to the premises was involved. It then set the case for hearing under its original jurisdiction pursuant to Section 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file this special civil action for mandamus and injunction to compel execution of the Municipal Court judgment and to enjoin the Court of First Instance from hearing the case under its original jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly denied the motion for execution and assumed original jurisdiction over the case on the ground that the question of ownership or title to the premises was involved, thereby divesting the Municipal Court of its jurisdiction over the detainer action.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus and injunction, upholding the order of the Court of First Instance. The Court ruled that the conflicting claims of ownership between the parties necessitated a determination of the question of title, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court in a detainer case. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an agreement of sale dated July 21, 1954, and alleged the Lisings were their employees/tenants under a contract of lease dated July 22, 1954. The Lisings vehemently denied these claims, asserting they were the true owners and that the agreement of sale was invalid due to deceit. They also specifically denied under oath the genuineness and due execution of the agreement of sale in their answer. The Court held that while a mere claim of ownership does not divest an inferior court of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is lost if, from the nature of the proof presented, the question of possession cannot be resolved without first settling the question of ownership. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners could not invoke the conclusive presumption under Section 68(b) of Rule 123 (that a tenant cannot deny the landlord’s title at the beginning of the relationship) or rely on the case of Sevilla vs. Tolentino, because the contract of lease dated July 22, 1954, was not attached to and pleaded in the complaint as required by Section 7, Rule 15. This failure to comply with the rule meant the Lisings were not burdened with an implied admission of being mere tenants. Therefore, the Court of First Instance correctly assumed original jurisdiction to try the case on its merits, including the issue of ownership.