Title
Zulueta vs. Mariano
Case
G.R. No. L-29360
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1982
Zulueta sued Avellana for ejectment, citing unpaid installments under a property sale contract. Courts debated jurisdiction over contract rescission vs unlawful detainer. Supreme Court ruled Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction, prohibiting the case’s original handling.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29360)

Factual Background

Jose C. Zulueta, the petitioner, was the registered owner of a property sold to Lamberto Avellana through a "Contract to Sell" dated November 6, 1964. The contract stipulated a purchase price of PHP 75,000.00, payable over twenty years, with Avellana responsible for initial and ongoing payments. A clause permitted Zulueta to recover possession of the property without judicial intervention upon Avellana's failure to meet payment obligations, effectively transforming the contract into a lease.

Avellana occupied the property starting December 1964. Zulueta filed an Ejectment suit on June 22, 1966, claiming Avellana defaulted on payments. The Municipal Court of Pasig ultimately ruled in favor of Zulueta, ordering Avellana to vacate and pay his arrears.

Appeal to the Court of First Instance

Following the Municipal Court ruling, Avellana appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, arguing that the case required interpretation of the contract and was beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. In response, Zulueta sought to execute the judgment, asserting that Avellana's appeal did not include payment of the required monthly rent during the proceedings. The respondent judge delayed resolution of these matters.

Jurisdictional Issues

The heart of the legal conflict lay in whether the Municipal Court possessed jurisdiction over the ejectment case, as Avellana argued that the matter required contract interpretation—an action outside the Municipal Court's purview. On March 21, 1968, the respondent judge dismissed the appeal, asserting that the core issues involved the contract interpretation and rescission, beyond the scope of the Municipal Court.

Despite this dismissal, the respondent judge indicated a willingness to treat the case as though it had been filed originally in his court, leading to Zulueta's subsequent legal action for Mandamus and Prohibition against the judge’s jurisdiction.

Legal Principles

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the presiding judge to exert appellate jurisdiction, while also seeking a writ of prohibition to challenge the judge’s exercise of original jurisdiction. The decision hinged on the interpretation of applicable laws governing jurisdiction and the nature of the case. It was determined that the crux of the conflict involved whether the alleged breach of contract warranted action in the Municipal Court, or required judicial intervention due to the complexities of contract interpretation.

Court's Decision

The court upheld the respondent judge’s assertion that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction, affirming that Zulueta

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.