GR L 1664; (April, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1664; April 21, 1948
MARIA BONGALA and ELIAS GORAYEB, defendants-petitioners, vs. JOSE BARBAZA, JR. and MERCEDES FORTICH, plaintiffs-respondents; BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge, respondent.
FACTS
Respondents Jose Barbaza, Jr. and Mercedes Fortich filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) presided by Judge Bienvenido A. Tan against petitioners Maria Bongala and Elias Gorayeb. They alleged that petitioners sold them a property but failed to vacate it as promised within two months, thereby unlawfully withholding possession. The complaint sought damages, attorney’s fees, and other equitable relief. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the action was essentially one for ejectment (unlawful detainer) falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal or justice of the peace courts, not the CFI. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondents, which is essentially an action for ejectment (unlawful detainer).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the CFI order and dismissed the complaint. The action is one for ejectment under Section 1, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, as it seeks to recover possession of an immovable property unlawfully withheld by vendors (petitioners) from vendees (respondents) after the expiration of their right to hold possession under a contract of sale. Under Act No. 136 , as amended, municipal and justice of the peace courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases filed within one year from the unlawful withholding of possession. Therefore, the CFI had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. The dismissal is without prejudice to the respondents’ right to file the proper action in the municipal court of Rizal City.
AI Generated by Armztrong.