G.R. No. L-1364; May 30, 1951
LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. DONATO OSORIO, DOMINGO DE LEON, CIRILO SIBUCAO, LUISA FERGERSON, JAIME BRIOSO, PEDRO ZAFRA, SATURNINO ROBLES, PEDRO LOPEZ, FIDELA FRANCISCO, CATALINA MANAHAN AND JOSE MENDOZA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On September 11, 1946, plaintiffs Loo Soo and Vy Liong Lee filed a complaint for ejectment in the Justice of the Peace Court of Pasay, Rizal, against the defendants regarding two parcels of land. The defendants, in their answer, set up a special defense alleging that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land, but one Geronimo Santiago, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 75399. They further contended that even if the plaintiffs bought the land, the sale should be set aside because, as aliens, they are constitutionally prohibited from acquiring it, and that they (defendants) never dealt with the plaintiffs but with Geronimo Santiago. The Justice of the Peace Court dismissed the case. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the defendants reiterated their answer. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence and rested their case, the defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the case involved the question of ownership of the land. The Court of First Instance sustained the motion and dismissed the case, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the mere allegation by the defendants in their answer that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land (due to a constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring land) divests the lower court (Court of First Instance in its appellate jurisdiction) of jurisdiction to try the ejectment case on appeal, by placing the question of ownership in issue.

RULING

No. The order of dismissal is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants’ allegation questioning the plaintiffs’ ownership does not divest the court of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case. The only issue in an ejectment (forcible entry and detainer) case is the physical possession of the land (possession de facto), not ownership (possession de jure). The plaintiffs’ title to the land cannot be collaterally attacked in an ejectment proceeding. The registered owner, Geronimo Santiago, who sold the land to the plaintiffs, is the proper party to challenge the title, which he did in a separate case in the Court of First Instance of Manila for annulment of the sale. As long as the plaintiffs’ title has not been finally annulled in a proper action, the defendants cannot raise the question of ownership to defeat the plaintiffs’ right to eject them. The Supreme Court cited the established rule that in an action of forcible entry and detainer, the mere filing of an answer claiming title or raising ownership does not divest the justice of the peace (or the court on appeal) of jurisdiction.