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...

Facts:

Parties and Initiation of Proceedings

• Petitioners: Maria Bongala and Elias Gorayeb.
• Respondents: Jose Barbaza, Jr. and Mercedes Fortich, with Bienvenido A. Tan acting as the presiding judge in the Court of First Instance.
• The suit was initiated on July 17, 1947, in the Court of First Instance, where the allegation centered on the wrongful withholding of possession of the premises known as No. 240 Apelo Cruz, Rizal City.

Motions Raised by Petitioners

• On August 9, 1947, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on several grounds:
• A forcible entry and detainer case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance pursuant to sections 1 and 2 of Rule 72.
• Even if the court were competent, the complaint was neither verified under oath nor preceded by proper notice to the petitioners.
• The complaint failed to set forth facts that would establish a cause of action.
• The motion to dismiss was denied on August 23, 1947.
• A subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed on September 1, 1947, but was also denied on September 6, 1947.

Allegations in the Complaint

• Plaintiffs in the initiated ejectment suit alleged that on April 19, 1947:
• Petitioners executed a deed of sale, selling the property to the plaintiffs in exchange for P15,000.
• Petitioners had an obligation to vacate the premises within two months, which they failed to do, thereby continuing their occupation of the property.
• Plaintiffs further contended that:
• They purchased the property with the intent to occupy it with their family, needing to relocate promptly due to their previous residence’s owner requiring immediate occupancy.
• Defendants had leased part of the premises (the upper story) to third parties for a monthly fee of P150.
• Owing to the delay, plaintiffs sought damages amounting to P20 per day from June 19, 1947, until full turnover of possession, plus additional claims including sums allegedly received from the lessees, attorney’s fees, and other equitable remedies.

Nature and Jurisdiction of the Complaint

• The complaint is essentially an ejectment case, purporting to recover possession of an immovable property unlawfully held by the petitioners after the execution of the deed of sale.
• The legal foundation for the complaint is found in section 1 of Rule 72, which provides a remedial scheme for recovering possession along with damages and costs.
• The complaint was filed within one month of the alleged breach of the contractual obligation by the petitioners to vacate and transfer possession.
• However, Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, as amended, confers exclusive original jurisdiction on municipal and justice of the peace courts for ejectment cases filed within one year after the unlawful withholding of possession.

Jurisdictional Conflict

• The Court of First Instance, where the complaint was instituted, does not possess exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases as mandated by Act No. 136.
• The case should have been originally filed in the proper municipal or justice of the peace court, given the nature of the remedy and the statutory provisions on jurisdiction.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Appropriateness

• Whether the Court of First Instance had proper jurisdiction to entertain an ejectment case under section 1 of Rule 72 when the exclusive jurisdiction was assigned to municipal or justice of the peace courts under Act No. 136.
• The impact of filing the complaint in an improper venue, despite it being timely and substantively aligned with the intended remedy.

Validity of the Procedural Posture

• Whether the motion to dismiss, based on the lack of verification under oath, absence of prior notice, and insufficiency of allegations in the complaint, should have been granted.
• The significance of the complaint's verification and procedural requirements in the context of ejectment actions.

Adequacy of the Relief Sought

• Whether the complaint, though not explicitly demanding an order for ejectment, sufficiently implied such relief through the general prayer for remedies in accord with justice and equity.
• How the urgency of the plaintiffs’ need to occupy the property factors into the court’s assessment of the remedy's adequacy.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)