- Title
- Cruz vs. Garcia
- Case
- G.R. No. L-1091
- Decision Date
- Aug 1, 1947
- Petitioners claimed ownership of a disputed house; justice of the peace court lacked jurisdiction as ownership was the primary issue, rendering execution order invalid.
79 Phil. 1
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-1091. August 01, 1947 ] DOMINGO CRUZ AND CRESCENCIA AUSTRIA, PETITIONERS, VS. EULALIO GARCIA, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, MANUEL JOAQUIN, AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
There can be no doubt that under the pleadings as well in the justice of the peace court as in the Court of First Instance, the principal issue relates to the ownership of the house in dispute, and that any question of possession that may be involved necessarily depends upon the result of the inquiry into the title. In other words, it is clear that the petitioners cannot be ousted without a judicial finding that they are not the owners. As a matter of fact, the complaint filed in the justice of the peace court does not allege any cause of action against the petitioners for forcible entry or unlawful detainer within the meaning of section 1 of Rule of Court No. 72. The suit should, therefore, have been dismissed by the said justice of the peace court; and the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not acquire appellate jurisdiction over the case.
The case at bar is substantially on all fours with Penalosa and Penalosa vs. Garcia (78 Phil., 245) and Torres and Paglinawan vs. Pena (78 Phil., 231). Conformably to our decisions therein, judgment is hereby entered, ordering the respondent judge to take cognizance of, and proceed with, the case in question in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and annulling the order of execution issued therein, by said respondent judge. So ordered, with costs against the respondent Manuel Joaquin.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, Hontiveros, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.