G.R. No. L-3592
DALMACIO FRANCISCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERONIMO TABADA, defendant-appellant.
January 14, 1908

FACTS:
The action was originally instituted in the Justice of the Peace Court of Cebu by Cayetana Ch. Veloso (alleged owner) and her husband, Dalmacio Francisco, against Geronimo Tabada (tenant) to recover possession of real estate, rents, and damages under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Justice of the Peace Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The defendant, Geronimo Tabada, appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), where the case was set for trial de novo. While the action was pending in the CFI, Cayetana Ch. Veloso died. Dalmacio Francisco, having been appointed administrator of her estate, was permitted to prosecute the action as the substituted plaintiff. The CFI again rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Geronimo Tabada then appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning several errors.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the complaint was improperly unverified.
2. Whether the substitution of Dalmacio Francisco as administrator for the deceased original plaintiff was improper.
3. Whether certain documents were improperly admitted in evidence.
4. Whether the trial court’s findings of fact were not sustained by the evidence.

RULING:
1. On the lack of verification: While Section 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires verification for original complaints in summary actions, the Court had previously held in Tarrosa vs. Pearson that a new complaint filed in the Court of First Instance on appeal need not be verified. Furthermore, if the objection pertained to the original complaint in the Justice of the Peace court, it was not made part of the record, and no timely objection was raised below. The Court held that lack of proper verification is an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and can be waived if not raised at the proper time. The appellant failed to make the lack of verification affirmatively appear of record.
2. On the substitution of the administrator: The Court ruled that actions to recover possession of real estate, instituted in the lifetime of the original plaintiff, survive to the executor or administrator of the deceased. Sections 702 and 703 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly authorize the administrator to prosecute such actions in the right of the deceased. Therefore, the CFI properly permitted the substitution.
3. On the admission of documents: The documents were introduced to establish the landlord-tenant relationship between the original plaintiff and the defendant, which was pertinent and competent to the issue in the action (i.e., whether the defendant was a tenant who failed to pay rent after demand). The mere fact that they also tended to establish ownership (a question not directly in issue in this summary action) did not render them inadmissible.
4. On the findings of fact: Upon reviewing all the testimony, the Supreme Court found that the evidence of record sustained the findings of the trial court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.