G.R. No. L-7657; March 6, 1914
AMBROSIO TIEMPO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES, SOCIEDAD COLECTIVA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Ambrosio Tiempo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Misamis seeking relief from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. The justice of the peace had assumed jurisdiction over an action for possession of real estate, wherein Tiempo claimed ownership by virtue of a sale with a right to repurchase (venta con pacto de retro), the vendor having failed to exercise the right of repurchase within the stipulated period. The justice of the peace acted under Section 80 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), which provides for summary proceedings for the recovery of possession. The Court of First Instance sustained a demurrer to Tiempo’s complaint, holding that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction. Tiempo appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether a justice of the peace has jurisdiction to hear and decide an action for possession of real property where the plaintiff’s claim of ownership is based on a sale with a right to repurchase (venta con pacto de retro).

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Court of First Instance sustaining the demurrer. Citing its prior ruling in Falcon vs. Barretto (26 Phil. Rep., 72), the Court held that justices of the peace have no jurisdiction to hear and decide cases under the summary proceedings of Section 80 of Act No. 190 when the plaintiff seeks possession based on alleged ownership rights acquired through a deed of sale with a right to repurchase. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace was void for lack of jurisdiction, and the complaint in the Court of First Instance seeking relief from that void judgment should not have been dismissed. The case was remanded for further proceedings.