Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1664)
Facts:
The case involves Maria Bongala and Elias Gorayeb as the defendants and petitioners, while Jose Barbaza, Jr. and Mercedes Fortich are the plaintiffs and respondents. The events leading to the case began on July 17, 1947, when the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal City, presided over by Judge Bienvenido A. Tan. The plaintiffs alleged that the petitioners were unlawfully withholding possession of a property located at No. 240 Apelo Cruz, Rizal City. The plaintiffs claimed that on April 19, 1947, the petitioners executed a deed of sale for the property in question, selling it to the plaintiffs for P15,000. The petitioners had promised to vacate the premises within two months but failed to do so, continuing to occupy the property despite the plaintiffs' need to move in by June due to their previous landlord's demand. The plaintiffs further alleged that the petitioners had leased the upper story of the property to third parties for P150 a...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1664)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioners: Maria Bongala and Elias Gorayeb (defendants).
- Respondents: Jose Barbaza, Jr. and Mercedes Fortich (plaintiffs).
- Respondent Judge: Bienvenido A. Tan, Judge of the Court of First Instance.
Property in Dispute:
- The property in question is located at No. 240 Apelo Cruz, Rizal City.
Allegations in the Complaint:
- On April 19, 1947, petitioners executed a deed of sale, selling the property to respondents for P15,000.
- Petitioners promised to vacate the premises within two months but failed to do so.
- Respondents purchased the property with the intention of occupying it, as they had to move out of their current residence by June 1947.
- Petitioners leased the upper story of the property to third parties at P150 per month.
- Respondents sought damages of P20 per day from June 19, 1947, until possession was returned, P300 for rent collected by petitioners, P200 in attorney’s fees, and other equitable remedies.
Procedural History:
- The complaint was filed on July 17, 1947, in the Court of First Instance.
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on August 9, 1947, arguing:
a. The Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment case under Rule 72.
b. The complaint was not verified, and no prior notice was given.
c. The complaint failed to state a cause of action. - The motion to dismiss was denied on August 23, 1947.
- A motion for reconsideration was filed on September 1, 1947, and denied on September 6, 1947.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Jurisdiction:
- Ejectment cases, including those involving unlawful withholding of possession, are governed by Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.
- Under Section 1 of Rule 72, such cases must be filed within one year of the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession and fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal or justice of the peace courts.
- The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over ejectment cases unless they involve questions of title or ownership, which were not raised in this case.
Procedural Compliance:
- The complaint was not verified, which is a requirement under Rule 72 for ejectment cases.
- The failure to verify the complaint rendered it defective.
Cause of Action:
- While the complaint alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for ejectment, the improper filing in the Court of First Instance and lack of verification rendered it dismissible.
Remedy:
- The dismissal of the complaint was without prejudice, allowing the respondents to refile the case in the proper municipal court.