Title
Aguilar vs. Cabrera
Case
G.R. No. 49129
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1944
Landowner Aguilar sued Flameno for unlawful detainer after lease expiration; Flameno claimed sale was a mortgage. Court ruled mandamus proper, upheld municipal court's jurisdiction over ejectment, emphasizing possession, not ownership, as key issue.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204944-45)

Background of the Case

On October 18, 1943, Rafael Flameno executed a deed of absolute sale with Celestino Aguilar, transferring a parcel of land for P57,000. Concurrently, a lease agreement was made permitting Flameno to occupy the property for a total of ninety days, which expired on January 16, 1944. Following Flameno's refusal to leave after multiple demands from Aguilar, the latter filed a complaint for unlawful detainer on January 21, 1944.

Procedural History

Flameno contested the jurisdiction of the municipal court, asserting that the deed of sale and lease were fictitious and alleged the true nature of their agreement was a mortgage. This led the judge to dismiss the case without hearing evidence, relying on several reasons, including the assertion that ownership must first be resolved before addressing possession.

Jurisdictional Issues

The core of the case centers on the jurisdiction of the municipal court to hear unlawful detainer actions. The Court determined that the mere claim of ownership by Flames does not alter the nature of the action. In such possessory actions, the nature of the claims raised in the complaint is decisive. In this case, Aguilar sought ejectment based on the expiration of lease, not a declaration of ownership.

Mandamus as a Remedy

The Court addressed whether mandamus could issue against the municipal judge's dismissal of the case. It concluded that an appeal would not provide an expeditious resolution compared to mandamus, as there were no adequate alternative remedies available. The judge was therefore compelled to exercise his duty and hear the case.

Findings on Unlawful Detainer

The Court held that Aguilar's complaint was primarily an unlawful detainer action. The claim for damages was accessory and did not change the essence of the complaint. Flameno's assertion of ownership would not pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.