G.R. No. L-39739 October 3, 1975
BUENAVENTURA GUTIERREZ, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. ROMEO D. MAGAT, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XI, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an ejectment suit filed by respondents Abad against petitioners Gutierrez in the municipal court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan. The municipal court dismissed the complaint, finding that the Gutierrezes had always been in possession of the disputed land. On appeal, the Court of First Instance (CFI) reversed the municipal court’s decision, ruling that the Abads were the prior lawful possessors and ordering the Gutierrezes to vacate and pay damages. Petitioners received the CFI decision on August 31, 1974, and subsequently filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal.
The CFI, however, issued an order on October 4, 1974, declaring its decision final and executory. Respondent Judge Magat refused to give due course to the appeal, holding that under Section 45 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031 , decisions of the CFI in cases appealed from municipal courts exercising exclusive original jurisdiction (like ejectment) were not appealable by record on appeal. Petitioners then sought relief from the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to annul this order.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Supreme Court can grant the petition, considering procedural timeliness and the substantive correctness of the CFI’s order denying the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Procedurally, the petition was filed out of time. Petitioners had sought and were granted a 30-day extension to file a petition for review under Republic Act No. 5440 , but they filed their petition beyond this extended period. Whether counted from the original deadline or the extended one, the mailing on January 2, 1975, was tardy.
Substantively, even if treated as a certiorari case under Rule 65, the petition lacks merit. The Court upheld the CFI’s order denying the appeal. It ruled that Section 45 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031 , explicitly prohibits an appeal by record on appeal from a CFI decision in a case that originated from a municipal court’s exclusive original jurisdiction, such as an ejectment suit. Therefore, respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion; he correctly applied the law. The Court further noted that the only issue in ejectment is possession de facto, not ownership (possession de jure), and found petitioners’ other contentions unsubstantiated. The petition was dismissed for being procedurally barred and substantively insufficient.