G.R. No. L‑4387

FACTS:
– The case originated in a Justice of the Peace court.
– The judgment of the Court of First Instance was entered after 1 July 1907, when Act No. 1627 (which declares such judgments final) took effect.
– The action involved forcible entry and detainer under § 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, not a money‐recovery suit as in Miguel Pavon and Un Pak Leung.
– The appellant moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the judgment should be deemed final under Act 1627.

ISSUE:
Whether Act No. 1627 (and its amendment of § 76 of the Code) applies to appeals from judgments in forcible entry and detainer actions, thereby rendering such judgments final and justifying dismissal of the appeal.

RULING:
The Court held that Act 1627 was intended to apply to all appeals, including those arising from forcible entry and detainer actions governed by § 80 (as amended by Act No. 1778). Accordingly, the judgment is final, the appeal is dismissed, and costs are awarded to the appellee.

Concurrence: Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Tracey.