G.R. No. L-17983; May 30, 1963
LEONCIO SOLEDAD, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAULO MAMAÑGUN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Leoncio Soledad filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila against Paulo Mamañgun to recover unpaid rentals and to secure an order for the latter to vacate the leased premises. The original complaint, however, failed to contain an express allegation that the defendant was illegally withholding possession of the property. Mamañgun moved to dismiss, arguing that without such an allegation, the action could not be deemed one for unlawful detainer but merely for recovery of a sum exceeding P2,000, which was beyond the municipal court’s jurisdiction. Before the court could rule on the motion, Soledad filed an amended complaint curing the defect by including the necessary averments for unlawful detainer.
Mamañgun opposed the amendment, contending that the court, having not acquired jurisdiction over the original defective complaint, lacked the power to allow any amendment. The municipal court denied the motion to dismiss, admitted the amended complaint, and proceeded to hear the case ex parte after Mamañgun refused to participate. Judgment was rendered in favor of Soledad. Mamañgun appealed to the Court of First Instance, reiterating his jurisdictional challenge, which was again denied. His subsequent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of merit. The case was then submitted on the pleadings, resulting in a decision against Mamañgun, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Court acquired jurisdiction to admit the amended complaint and proceed with the case, considering the original complaint’s alleged jurisdictional defect.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the Municipal Court validly acquired jurisdiction. The legal logic rests on the application of procedural rules governing amendments. Under the then Rule 17, Section 1, a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading. Therefore, at the time Soledad filed his amended complaint, Mamañgun had not yet served a responsive pleading, and Soledad retained the absolute right to amend without needing court permission.
Consequently, the amended complaint, which properly alleged a cause of action for unlawful detainer within the municipal court’s jurisdiction, related back to the date of the original filing. The court’s authority to act on the case stemmed from this properly amended pleading. The Supreme Court also noted that its prior dismissal of Mamañgun’s certiorari petition on the merits reinforced the correctness of the lower court’s ruling. Thus, the jurisdictional challenge was without merit.