Facts:
On 2 May 1968,
Catalino de la Victoria and
Francisca O. de la Victoria (plaintiffs-respondents) filed Civil Case No. 6005 with the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch I, against
Jose Salcedo Quimpo (defendant-petitioner) for
quieting of title and
recovery of possession with damages over the same parcel of land subject of the later dispute. On 28 June 1968, plaintiffs-respondents filed Civil Case No. 1299-B in the City Court of Davao City against Quimpo for
forcible entry over the same parcel of land, and in that case prayed that Quimpo be ordered to vacate and deliver possession to plaintiffs, and that he pay
P500.00 a month as rental from the later part of March, 1968 until possession would be delivered, plus
attorney’s fees. In a motion to dismiss dated 13 July 1968, Quimpo sought dismissal of the forcible entry complaint on the ground of the pendency of Civil Case No. 6005, but the City Court denied the motion on 29 November 1968, stating that there was no identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for and that it did not appear that judgment in the other action would amount to *res adjudicata* in the forcible entry case. Quimpo was declared in default on 12 December 1968 for failure to file an answer, and the City Court received plaintiffs’ evidence on the following day. On 16 January 1969, the City Court rendered judgment ordering Quimpo to vacate and deliver possession, pay
P500.00 monthly rental from March, 1968 until delivery of possession, and pay costs. Quimpo moved for reconsideration, and the City Court denied the motion on 4 March 1969. Quimpo appealed to the Court of First Instance, docketed as Civil Case No. 6437, and on 5 July 1969 reiterated his arguments for dismissal. Plaintiffs-respondents moved for
immediate execution of the City Court decision. On 29 July 1969, the Court of First Instance denied Quimpo’s motion to dismiss for lack of merit and granted immediate execution. After Quimpo’s motion for reconsideration was denied and his appeal dismissed, he filed a petition, raising, among others, the claim that the forcible entry complaint was void due to defective verification and that the City Court and the appellate court erred in proceeding with immediate execution and in sustaining the denial of his procedural objections.
Issues:
Whether the City Court and the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the forcible entry case despite the alleged insufficiency of the complaint’s verification.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: