G.R. No. L-6005 December 29, 1953
NER J. LOPEZ, vs. LUCIA Y. MATIAS VDA. DE TINIO and the HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO R. CABRERA, of the Municipal Court of Manila, Branch III.

FACTS

Lucia Y. Matias Vda. de Tinio filed a detainer action against Ner J. Lopez in the Municipal Court of Manila to dispossess him of a lot on Evangelista Street for failure to pay stipulated rentals. Lopez filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action, which the municipal court denied. Instead of filing an answer, Lopez filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance, challenging the municipal court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. The Court of First Instance denied his petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, which sought to annul the municipal court’s interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss the detainer complaint.

RULING

Yes, the Court of First Instance correctly denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that a writ of certiorari does not lie in this case. The municipal court clearly had jurisdiction over the detainer action. Jurisdiction is determined from the material facts alleged in the complaint, and the alleged defect raised by Lopez—that the contract of lease was not attached to the complaint—is a matter of defense that should be pleaded in his answer. The denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, which is not appealable. Since the order was interlocutory and the court had jurisdiction, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari was not available. The proper remedy for Lopez after an adverse judgment from the municipal court was to appeal, not to file a petition for certiorari.