Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19330)
Facts:
General Insurance and Surety Corporation v. Leandro E. Castelo and Josefa Payumo Castelo, G.R. No. L-19330, April 30, 1965, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regala, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellant was General Insurance and Surety Corporation; the defendants-appellees were spouses Leandro E. Castelo and Josefa Payumo Castelo.
On October 22, 1950, the plaintiff-appellant filed with the Municipal Court of Quezon City an ejectment complaint claiming ownership of Lot No. 34 Bulusan, Quezon City, and alleging that the defendants persisted in occupying the property without paying rentals despite demands. The defendants moved to dismiss on October 29, 1959, contending the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction; the Municipal Court denied that motion on November 3, 1959, finding a cause of action.
The defendants filed an "Answer with Counterclaims" on November 9, 1959, denying plaintiff's ownership and asserting that any title issued in plaintiff's name would be held in trust for the defendants; the plaintiff filed a reply on November 14, 1959. At trial the Municipal Court dismissed the ejectment complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the controversy "hinges on a question of ownership" and was beyond the competence of an inferior court.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-5126). The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that Section 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court deprived the CFI of appellate jurisdiction over a case tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction. The CFI denied the motion (after two postponements) and later denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration, set pre-trial (September 1, 1960), and scheduled hearings on the merits (October 21, 1960). The defendants filed a "Petition to Suspend Trial" on October 19, 1960, asserting another pending civil case between the parties involving ownership; the CFI did not rule on that petition but, on February 2, 1961, dismissed the complaint because of the defendants' "insistent objection to the exercise of original jurisdiction" by the CFI.
The plaintiff appealed the CFI's dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court. The record shows no trial or factual findings on the merits by the CFI; the controversy as pleaded raised competing claims of ownership (plaintiff...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Section 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, could the Court of First Instance acquire jurisdiction over a case tried by an inferior court where the controversy involves ownership—by exercising appellate jurisdiction or only by assuming original jurisdiction?
- If the CFI could have assumed original jurisdiction, was dismissal proper where the defendants had timely and persistent objections to the CFI'...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)