Ortigas & Company Ltd Partnership v. CA and Maximo Belmonte (1981) Abad Santos, J.

Facts:

1. 2. 3.

Ortigas and Co. (plaintiff) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Maximo Belmonte (defendant) in the Municipal Court of San Juan Rizal. They prayed: To order defendant, his heirs, assigns, & successors-in-interest to surrender the lot; To declare the residential building constructed on the lot by defendant as forfeited in favor of plaintiff; To condemn defendant to pay monthly rent of P5,000 up to the time he vacates (plus exemplary damages and atty fees). Municipal Court ruled in favor of plaintiff. Defendant filed a MR. Denied. Defendant appealed to CFI-Rizal but instead of filing a memorandum to support his appeal, he filed a MTD alleging lack of jurisdiction (of both courts. Read:Rule 40, Sec11) SECTION 11. Lack of Jurisdiction. A case tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal by the Court of First Instance. But instead of dismissing the case, the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may try the case on the merits if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the trial without any objection to such jurisdiction.

1. 2. 3.

CFI denied MTD and issued a writ of execution. Belmonte filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the CA, assailing The jurisdiction of the CFI and Municipal Court; The propriety of the judgment on the pleadings by the MC; and The propriety of the issuance of the writ of execution The CA ruled in favor of defendant, holding that the MC has no jurisdiction. In support of his contention that the MC did not have jurisdiction over the case, the defendant cited Fuentes v. Palma.

Issue/Held: 1. Does the CA have appellate jurisdiction over this case? NO 2. Did the Municipal Court have jurisdiction to resolve the issues in the original complaint? NO Ratio: Re: CA jurisdiction over the current case

After analyzing the issues raised by the defendant, the SC held that these were purely legal in nature. Since appellate jurisdiction over cases involving purely legal questions is exclusively vested in the SC by Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act (RA 296), the CA did not have appellate jurisdiction, the SC did. The decision of the CA should be set aside.

Re: Municipal Court jurisdiction

SC examines the case cited by the defendant and found that the facts are almost identical with the current case. The SC find the ruling in that case applicable. In that case, the ruling was: o An action for unlawful detainer, which is a summary proceeding to wrest possession from one who has no right, is applicable only when the issue is that of possession; but rights of property in the land created by Agreements, especially the relative rights and obligations of the parties to the improvements, the Justice of the Peace Court (now Municipal Court) did not have jurisdiction over the action as it involved rights over the real property, other than mere right of possession. Where a subdivision owner seeks not just to eject the lot buyer who defaulted but also prays that the residential building constructed by the buyer be forfeited, jurisdiction over the case belongs to the CFI not the MC. The issues raised before the inferior court did not only involve the possession of the lot but also rights and obligations of the parties to the residential building (under Art. 415 is real property). Since the issues raised before the MC exceeded the allowable scope of an unlawful detainer (which should only be the possession of real property NOT ownership) the case could not qualify as an exception to the jurisdiction of CFI as provided by the Judiciary Act. And since it does not fall within the exceptions, it was within the CFIs jurisdiction to try this case. SECTION 44. Original Jurisdiction. Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction: xxx (b) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, or the legality of any tax, impost or assessment, except actions of forcible entry into and detainer on lands or buildings, original jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon city and municipal courts;

A CFI cannot assume jurisdiction in a case by Sec 11 Rule 40 (quoted earlier in the facts) since the defendant here expressly objected to assumption of jurisdiction by the CFI. The decision of the CFI should likewise be set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition. Without prejudice to the right of Ortigas to file the proper action in the proper court, the decisions of the CA, CFI and MC are set aside.