G.R. No. L-91; April 12, 1946
SUSANO AMOR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which itself was an appeal from the municipal court of Manila. The plaintiff-appellee, Susano Amor, is the owner of two premises: the second floor of No. 2248 and the second floor of No. 2250, Rizal Avenue. Regarding the first property (No. 2248), Amor secured a judgment ejecting a prior occupant, Rosario Lozano, around March 1944. However, the defendant-appellant, Francisco Gonzalez, entered and occupied the premises without Amor’s knowledge or consent and refused to vacate despite demands. Gonzalez also failed to pay the reasonable monthly value for the use and occupation, fixed at P40 per month from March 16, 1944. Regarding the second property (No. 2250), Gonzalez was already occupying it. Amor, having lost his own residence, asked Gonzalez to vacate, but he refused. Gonzalez was in arrears in paying rent (also P40 per month) for this property since July 16, 1943. The defendant’s defense in the lower court was that the plaintiff, being a person of means with various houses, was not in need of the premises, unlike the defendant. The Court of First Instance, while expressing sympathy, ruled based on the evidence, which favored the plaintiff. It rendered judgment ordering Gonzalez to vacate both premises, deliver possession to Amor, and pay “rents” at P40 per month for each property from specified dates until he vacates.

ISSUE

Whether the municipal court and the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the case, given the appellant’s contention on appeal that the cause of action accrued more than one year prior to the commencement of the suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The appellant’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the municipal and appellate courts is untenable. First, the issue of jurisdiction was not raised in either the municipal court or the Court of First Instance; it was raised for the first time on appeal. Second, the evidence established that the causes of action accrued much less than one year before the suit was filed in the municipal court. Third, even assuming a lack of jurisdiction in the inferior court, Rule 40, section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that in such a case, the Court of First Instance, on appeal, may dismiss the case or, if the parties file their pleadings and go to trial without objection to jurisdiction, may try the case on the merits in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. This condition was met here, as both parties proceeded to trial in the Court of First Instance without any jurisdictional objection. The judgment was found to be in accordance with the facts and the law. Costs were awarded against the defendant-appellant.