G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968
EMILIO SY, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE HON. JUDGE MANUEL DALMAN and JOSEFA VDA. DE RAMOS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Respondent Josefa Vda. de Ramos was an applicant for a miscellaneous sales application with the Bureau of Lands over Lot No. 345, Dipolog Cadastre, Zamboanga del Norte. On June 13, 1950, she leased this property to appellant Emilio Sy for five years, renewable for another ten years, and agreed to construct a cine building on the lot. During the lease, the Bureau of Lands cancelled Ramos’s sales application and forfeited the land to the government, as per a decision by the Executive Secretary dated April 27, 1954. This decision stated Ramos was entitled to reimbursement for the value of her improvements from the successful bidder at public auction, or the right to remove the house if the government did not reimburse her. The land was later sold at public auction on March 31, 1960, with appellant Sy as the highest bidder for P142,000.00. The building was assessed at P27,350.00, and the parties agreed Sy would pay this value in five equal annual installments. Sy paid the first two installments. Meanwhile, on March 3, 1960, Sy filed a case (Civil Case No. 1150) in the Court of First Instance to recover expenses for repairs and improvements on the moviehouse. Subsequently, Sy stopped paying the monthly rentals of P250.00 to Ramos despite demands. On August 23, 1960, Ramos filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 1261) against Sy in the justice of the peace court of Dipolog. Sy moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, claiming the issue of possession was interwoven with ownership since he was the successful bidder for the land and was paying for the building. The justice of the peace court denied the motion to dismiss. The Court of First Instance upheld this denial, dismissing Sy’s petition. Sy appealed, raising the same issues.

ISSUE

Whether the justice of the peace court lacked jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case on the ground that the issue of possession is directly interwoven with the issue of ownership.

RULING

No. The justice of the peace court retained jurisdiction. In ejectment cases, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The defendant’s claim of title does not automatically defeat the court’s jurisdiction unless the evidence at trial shows the question of title is actually involved and must be resolved to decide possession. In this case, the trial had not yet started when Sy filed his motion to dismiss; thus, the exception did not apply. His claim of ownership, based on being the successful bidder and agreeing to pay for the improvements, was a matter of defense and an issue of fact to be determined from evidence at trial. Furthermore, it was stipulated that no award had yet been made by the Bureau of Lands in Sy’s favor as of the date of the stipulation. The denial of the motion to dismiss was an interlocutory order, and the proper remedy was to await judgment on the merits and then appeal, or to raise the issue of ownership in the answer and present supporting evidence. The denial did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The judgment of the Court of First Instance was affirmed.