Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5858)
Facts:
Petitioner Filomena Juzon de Po owned registered land in Calubian, Leyte, covered by TCT No. T-320, which she claimed her family possessed continuously. On August 23, 1949, she executed a document purporting to sell the land and house to Jose Q. Enage for P10,000; she asserted it was actually a mortgage securing a P10,000 loan which Enage allegedly advanced only P6,000 and which she continued to settle, while Enage never took possession. Enage later sold the property with pacto de retro to Dra. Macrina Leyson, who similarly never took possession, and after Enage redeemed from Leyson, Enage sold the same property on September 5, 1951 to co-respondent Eugenio Nierras, who caused cancellation of TCT No. T-320 and issuance of TCT No. T-683 in his name.
On October 21, 1951, Filomena filed Civil Case No. 906 in the Court of First Instance of Leyte to annul and cancel Enage’s purported sale, later amending on December 12, 1951 to include Nierras. Four days later, Nierras filed Civil Case No. 6 for unlawful detainer in the Justice of the Peace Court of Calubian, seeking possession as vendee. The Justice of the Peace Court overruled Filomena’s jurisdictional challenge and ruled for Nierras, ordering delivery of the land and payment of P1,600 in damages; Filomena appealed but did not file a supersedeas bond. Execution was nonetheless ordered by the Court of First Instance, prompting Filomena to file a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, which the Court initially granted pending resolution.
Issues:
- Whether the Justice of the Peace Court had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case despite the pendency of Civil Case No. 906 involving the validity of the conveyance of the same property.
- Whether the Court of First Instance, on appeal, had appellate jurisdiction to order execution of the Justice of the Peace Court judgment when no supersedeas bond was filed.
Ruling:
The Court granted the petition and made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent, holding that the Justice of the Peace Court should have dismissed the unlawful detainer case for lack of jurisdiction because title issues had to be resolved before possession could be properly determined.
Consequently, the Court ruled that the Court of First Instance had no appellate jurisdiction, so the respondent judge lacked authority to issue the writ of execution; Filomena was entitled to relief, and costs were awarded against Nierras.
Ratio:
The Court held that Filomena presented evidence establishing a prima facie, meritorious claim that the controversy in unlawful detainer could not be resolved without first settling the question of title arising from the nature and validity of the challenged conveyance, and that Nierras had never had possession. It found no room for the inference that Civil Case No. 906 was an afterthought, since Filomena filed it before the detainer action and amended it only after learning of Nierras’s subsequent sale and registration.
Because the Justice of the Peace Court lacked jurisdiction, all proceedings were void, the Court of First Instance acquired no appellate jurisdiction, and the respondent judge had no authority to order execution based on the failure to file a supersedeas bond. The Court further justified intervention by noting that the execution order in a detainer case was interlocutory and that forcing ejectment under a potentially void judgment would defeat the purpose of orderly review, especially where jurisdictional defects were raised.
Doctrine:
- In forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the mere assertion by the defendant of ownership or title does not automatically divest the Justice of the Peace Court of jurisdiction.
- (Get Pro to unlock 6 more doctrines)