G.R. No. L-7076; April 28, 1955
ERIBERTO P. ROSARIO and PAZ UNTALAN DE ROSARIO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FILOMENO CARANGDANG, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On October 16, 1952, plaintiffs-appellants Eriberto P. Rosario and Paz Untalan de Rosario filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against defendants-appellees. They alleged they were the owners and possessors of a parcel of land in Labrador, Pangasinan, for which they had applied for registration in Land Registration Case No. 658. They claimed that on or about October 3, 1952, defendants illegally entered the land, destroyed nipa plants, constructed dikes to convert it into a fishpond, and continued possession despite warnings, causing damages of P2,000. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on November 3, 1952, arguing (1) the court lacked jurisdiction as the action was for forcible entry and detainer, exclusively cognizable by the Justice of the Peace Court, and the damages did not exceed P2,000; and (2) there was another pending case between the same parties involving the same land (the registration cases). The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on November 7, 1952. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to admit an amended complaint, which for the first time specifically alleged defendants were claiming ownership of the land in the registration cases. The lower court denied the motion, sustaining defendants’ opposition that the amendment would convert the action from forcible entry to one for recovery of ownership. Plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the original complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the lower court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and in refusing to admit their amended complaint.

RULING

1. Yes, the dismissal of the original complaint was correct. The complaint, filed barely two weeks after the alleged illegal entry, constituted a clear action for forcible entry and detainer. It alleged prior possession by plaintiffs and deprivation thereof by defendants within one year, a case falling under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court under Rule 72, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and Section 88 of Republic Act 296. The claim for damages (P2,000, with an additional P500 for litigation expenses) did not alter this jurisdiction, as justice of the peace courts have exclusive jurisdiction over forcible entry cases regardless of the amount of damages claimed, and litigation expenses are excluded from the jurisdictional amount. The prayer for declaration of ownership did not convert the action, as jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint, not the prayer.
2. No, the lower court did not err. While amendments to pleadings are generally favored, an amendment cannot be allowed to confer jurisdiction upon a court that lacks it from the face of the original complaint. The original complaint was for forcible entry, over which the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction. Not having acquired jurisdiction, the court had no power to act on the motion to admit the amended complaint. The amendment would have radically altered the action’s theory from forcible entry to one for recovery of ownership (reivindicacion). The case might have been different if the amendment were made before an answer or motion to dismiss was filed, as the original complaint could then be amended as of right. The orders appealed from were affirmed, without prejudice to appellants filing a separate action for reivindicacion.