G.R. No. L-35482 - Drilon vs. Gaurana

The case involves a parcel of agricultural land known as Lot 1672, Nueva Valencia Cadastre, situated in Sitio Dasan, Barrio Sto. Domingo, Municipality of Nueva Valencia, Iloilo.
The land is covered by Free Patent No. 455943 in the name of Manuel Drilon, who was issued Original Certificate of Title No. F-10242 by the Register of Deeds of Iloilo.

On September 4, 1970, respondent Luis Gaurana filed Civil Case No. 8323 before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo for “Annulment of Free Patent and/or Reconveyance” of the subject property.
Manuel Drilon, the petitioner, answered on September 29, 1970, asserting as a special defense that he had purchased Lot 1673 from Evangeline Gaurana (wife of respondent Luis Gaurana) in November 1962, which formed the basis of his application for free patent.
On September 14, 1970, nearly simultaneously, respondent Luis Gaurana initiated another legal action, MC Civil Case No. 126, in the Municipal Court of Nueva Valencia, alleging “Forcible Entry” by Drilon on the same parcel of land.

It was alleged that on July 14, 1970, petitioner Manuel Drilon took possession of the South-East portion of the property by means of stealth, force, and strategy.
The complaint further contended that despite demands to vacate the property, Drilon continued to retain possession.

On December 7, 1970, petitioner Manuel Drilon filed a Motion to Dismiss MC-Civil Case No. 126 on two grounds:

Lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the action for recovery of ownership and possession of real property was mischaracterized as “forcible entry”.
The pendency of Civil Case No. 8323, contending that both actions derived from the same cause, arising subsequent to the alleged forcible entry on July 14, 1970.

On January 7, 1971, the Municipal Court of Nueva Valencia denied the motion to dismiss, holding that:

There was no splitting of a single cause of action.
The act of dispossession occurred after the filing of Civil Case No. 8323, reducing the issue to one of de facto possession.

The petitioner was declared in default by the Municipal Court on May 18, 1971, and evidence was presented ex-parte by respondent Luis Gaurana, leading to a June 9, 1971 decision ejecting Drilon from the premises. The decision emphatically stated the denial of the motion to dismiss.

On May 19, 1971, petitioner Drilon filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, challenging Judge Arturo Alinio’s jurisdiction and actions in MC-Civil Case No. 126.
The Court of First Instance, through Judge Valerio V. Rovira, affirmed the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Nueva Valencia and denied the petition, relying on the allegations in the complaint rather than those in the motion to dismiss or defendant’s answer.
Drilon subsequently appealed, and questions of law were raised, prompting the Supreme Court to require the filing of a petition for review on certiorari in conformity with R.A. No. 5440.
The procedural history further involved motions for reconsideration, filing of briefs by both parties, and the eventual submission for decision due to the petitioner’s failure to file a reply brief.

First Error: The petitioner contended that the respondent judge erred in holding that there was no splitting of a single cause of action.
Second Error: It was argued that Judge Rovira abused his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the forcible entry case.
Third Error: The petitioner alleged that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction to try Civil Case No. 126 for forcible entry.

Whether there was a splitting of a single cause of action by the initiation of two separate suits (CFI-Civil Case No. 8323 for annulment of free patent and/or reconveyance versus MC-Civil Case No. 126 for forcible entry) even though both cases arose from the same property dispute.
Whether the Municipal Court of Nueva Valencia abused its discretion in denying petitioner Manuel Drilon’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of the pendency of another action for reconveyance of title.
Whether the Municipal Court had jurisdiction to try the forcible entry case, given that the issue of ownership (as opposed to the issue of de facto possession) was set forth by the claimant.