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.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1091)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioners: Domingo Cruz and Crescencia Austria.
    • Respondents: Eulalio Garcia (Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal), Manuel Joaquin, and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal.
  2. Property in Dispute:

    • A house located at No. 18 O'Farrell Street, Pasay, Rizal.
  3. Claim of Manuel Joaquin:

    • He filed an ejectment suit in the justice of the peace court of Pasay, Rizal, alleging that he purchased the house from Eulalio Algoso on April 16, 1946.
    • He claimed that the petitioners (Cruz and Austria) were in possession of the house at the time of the purchase.
  4. Defense of Petitioners:

    • They asserted that they are the sole and absolute owners of the property.
    • They denied that Eulalio Algoso was ever the owner of the house.
  5. Proceedings in the Justice of the Peace Court:

    • The court denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss.
    • Manuel Joaquin presented his evidence, and the court ruled in his favor, ordering the petitioners to vacate the house and pay a monthly rental of P30.
  6. Appeal to the Court of First Instance:

    • The petitioners reiterated their defenses.
    • They did not deposit the rental awarded by the justice of the peace court.
    • Manuel Joaquin moved for immediate execution, which the petitioners opposed, arguing that the justice of the peace court lacked jurisdiction because the case involved a question of ownership.
    • The Court of First Instance overruled the opposition and issued an order for execution.
  7. Petition for Certiorari:

    • The petitioners filed an original petition for certiorari, seeking to set aside the order of execution, declare the proceedings in the justice of the peace court null and void, and prevent the respondent judge from further proceeding with the case.

Issue:

  1. Whether the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction over the case, given that the principal issue involved the ownership of the property.
  2. Whether the Court of First Instance properly acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case.
  3. Whether the order of execution issued by the Court of First Instance was valid.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.