- Title
- Jarin vs. Sarinas
- Case
- G.R. No. L-2926
- Decision Date
- May 10, 1951
- Mortgage dispute over P2,000 debt from 1944; Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction, case dismissed; proper forum was Justice of the Peace Court.
88 Phil. 660
[ G. R.No. L-2926. May 10, 1951 ] PAZ JARIN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS VS. DANIEL SARINAS ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
PADILLA, J.:
After summons the defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that the payment of the debt sought to be collected was suspended by Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 32. This motion to dismiss was denied by the court on 27 September 1948. A motion for reconsideration of the preceding order was filed, and after hearing, the court set it aside and dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute a cause of action, without prejudice to the, plaintiffs' right to bring the action after the moratorium shall have been removed. A motion for reconsideration of the last order filed by the plaintiffs was denied. From the order dismissing the complaint the plaintiffs have appealed.
Appellants contend that Republic Act No. 342 has removed the suspension of payment not only of pre-war debts, not falling under the exception, but also of those contracted during the enemy occupation. In the memorandum in lieu of oral argument, counsel raises the question of the constitutionality of Executive Orders Nos. 25 and 32 suspending the payment of debts. He contends that such suspension infringes upon the constitutional limitation on legislative power or authority to pass a law which impairs the obligation of contracts.
On 7 August 1948, when this action was brought by the appellants, Republic Act No. 296, known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, was already in force, the same having been approved on 17 June 1948.
Section 44 of the Act provides:
Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:
(a) * * * * * * *
(b) * * * * * * *
(c) In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to more than two thousand pesos;
Section 88 of the Act provides:
As this is an action to collect P2,000, and not a foreclosure suit, for the copy of the mortgage attached to the complaint does not show that the original has been registered in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, the court that has exclusive original jurisdiction over the case is the Justice of the Peace Court of the municipality of Imus, province of Cavite, where both appellants and appellees reside. For that reason the Court of First Instance of Cavite had no jurisdiction to hear and try the case and the dismissal of the complaint ordered by it is void and of no legal effect.
The appeal and the complaint are dismissed without costs.
Paras, C. J., Feria,, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.