Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24308)
Facts:
Leopoldo Vencilao v. Cleto Camarenta, et al., G.R. No. L-24308. September 30, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zaldivar, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Leopoldo Vencilao filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer before the Justice of the Peace Court of Maribojoc, Bohol on February 11, 1961 (amended March 9, 1961), alleging that he, as one of the heirs of Vicenta Obenza, had been in lawful and peaceful possession of a house and five parcels of land since Vicenta’s death on January 24, 1960, and that on September 16, 1960 the defendants forcibly and stealthily took possession, harvested the fruits, and unlawfully deprived him of possession; he sought restoration of possession, P75.00 monthly compensation from date of illegal entry, attorney’s fees and costs.
On June 14, 1961 the Justice of the Peace rendered judgment in favor of Vencilao, ordering defendants to vacate and restore possession, to pay P75.00 monthly compensation from September 16, 1960 until possession was restored, P100 attorney’s fees, and costs. Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Bohol on June 26, 1961 and, after docketing, moved to dismiss alleging the action was not prosecuted in the name of the real parties in interest (co-owners). The Court of First Instance denied that motion on July 21, 1961, relying on Article 487 of the Civil Code that any co-owner may bring an action in ejectment.
On appeal proceedings in the Court of First Instance, defendants answered (August 11, 1961) asserting for the first time that they were tenants authorized by Albina Obenza, who purportedly acquired the properties by donation; they counterclaimed for alleged damages from malicious prosecution. Plaintiff moved for execution of the Justice of the Peace judgment; the Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution on March 30, 1962 requiring defendants to deliver possession. Defendants then moved (May 23, 1962) to dismiss the case on the ground that title necessarily was involved and the Justice of the Peace lacked jurisdiction to determine the case—a contention raising ownership as a preliminary matter.
On June 1, 1962 the Court of First Instance dismissed the case for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the Justice of the Peace had no original jurisdiction because title had to be determined first; it also ordered return o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Justice of the Peace Court of Maribojoc have original jurisdiction to entertain the forcible entry and detainer action filed by plaintiff?
- Was the Court of First Instance proper in dismissing the complaint without trial on the merits because defendants raised ownership in their motion to dismiss?
- Must all co-owners be joined as plaintiffs in a forcible entry and detainer acti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)