Case Digest (G.R. No. 7927)
Facts:
Juan Barrameda v. Percy M. Moir (Judge of First Instance) et al., G.R. No. 7927. August 08, 1913, the Supreme Court, Trent, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Juan Barrameda was defendant in a justice of the peace action to try title to a parcel of land and lost. He appealed to the Court of First Instance. The respondent judge of the Court of First Instance, Percy M. Moir, on motion of the appellee, dismissed the appeal and directed the justice of the peace to proceed with enforcement of the justice court's judgment.
At the request of Barrameda, this Court issued a preliminary injunction staying execution of the justice of the peace judgment. Barrameda then filed an original application for a writ of mandamus asking the respondent judge to proceed with the case on appeal. The respondent judge demurred to the petition, alleging that Acts Nos. 2041 and 2131 — statutes conferring jurisdiction on justices of the peace to hear title cases — were repugnant to the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902, and therefore the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Acts Nos. 2041 (sec. 3) and 2131 were recited: under No. 2041, justices of the peace were given "exclusive jurisdiction" to adjudicate title where the property value did not exceed ₱200 and concurrent jurisdiction where value exceeded ₱200 but was less than ₱600; Act No. 2131 amended the phrase to "exclusive original jurisdiction." The respondent judge's demurrer thus raised the question whether those statutory grants unlawfully curtailed the original jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance as defined in the Organic Law (Act No. 136, sec. 56, par. 2) and by the Philippine Bill.
The Court considered prior authority, particularly Weigall v. Shuster (11 Phil. Rep., 340), and applied severability principles to determine which portions, if any, of the Acts could stand if parts were void. The Supreme Court concluded that the justice of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are Acts Nos. 2041 and 2131 repugnant to the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902, insofar as they confer "exclusive" or "exclusive original" jurisdiction on justices of the peace to try title to real estate of value not exceeding ₱200, or concurrent jurisdiction when the value exceeds ₱200 but is less than ₱600?
- Should the writ of mandamus be issued to compel the respondent judge to proceed with the appeal from...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)