G.R. No. L-11831; January 29, 1959
ISIDORA AUREO, joined by her husband CATALINO PENERO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FUNDADOR AUREO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiffs filed a case for forcible entry and detainer in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Miguel, Leyte, over a portion of land. After plaintiffs presented their evidence, defendant verbally moved to dismiss the case on the ground that it involved a question of ownership, not merely forcible entry. The Justice of the Peace Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed this dismissal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte. In the CFI, defendant filed an answer with a motion to dismiss, arguing the CFI was without appellate jurisdiction because the inferior court had ruled it had no original jurisdiction as ownership was involved. When the case was called for hearing, defendant failed to appear. The CFI, before allowing plaintiffs to present evidence, ruled that defendant’s motion to dismiss was considered not submitted and denied it for lack of due notification to opposing counsel. Plaintiffs then presented their evidence, after which the CFI rendered a decision in their favor, ordering defendant to restore possession of the land and pay damages. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the decision, citing excusable neglect and a meritorious defense, which the CFI denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial without first resolving defendant’s motion to dismiss based on lack of appellate jurisdiction.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to set aside the decision.
3. Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment without allowing defendant to present evidence and without deciding on his counterclaim.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision and the order denying the motion to set it aside.
1. On the motion to dismiss and jurisdiction: The trial court did not err. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly regarded as not filed and denied due to lack of due notification. Regarding jurisdiction, Section 10, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court was not applicable because there had been a valid trial on the merits in the Justice of the Peace Court (plaintiffs presented their evidence before dismissal). Section 11, Rule 40 applied, which allows the CFI, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, to try the case on the merits if the parties file their pleadings and go to trial without objection to such jurisdiction. Plaintiffs did not object and presented evidence. Defendant, in his motion, objected only to the CFI’s appellate jurisdiction, not to its exercise of original jurisdiction, and later sought to present his own evidence.
2. On the motion to set aside the decision: The trial court did not err in denying it. The granting of such motions is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Furthermore, defendant’s motion was not accompanied by an affidavit of merits showing facts constituting a good and substantial defense, as required by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
3. On rendering judgment without defendant’s evidence and counterclaim: This issue is resolved by the above findings. Since the motion to set aside was properly denied and defendant failed to appear at trial, the court did not err in proceeding with the judgment based on plaintiffs’ evidence. The counterclaim was not decided as defendant failed to prosecute it by his absence.
*Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.*