Po v. Moscoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Filomena Juzon de Po, married to a Chinese citizen, owned a registered parcel of land with a house. She executed a document purporting to sell this property to Jose Q. Enage for P10,000. Filomena claimed this was a mortgage to guarantee a loan, and that she only received P6,000, with Enage promising to pay her debt to the Philippine National Bank. Enage never took possession, and Filomena continued to occupy the property. Procedural History: Enage sold the property with pacto de retro to Dra. Macrina Leyson, who used part of the sale price to pay Filomena's bank loan, though a balance remained. Enage later redeemed the land and sold it to Eugenio Nierras, who registered the sale and obtained a new title. Filomena filed an action (Civil Case No. 906) against Enage to annul the sale, claiming it was a mortgage. She amended the complaint to include Nierras as a defendant after learning of the sale to him. The Petition: Nierras filed an unlawful detainer case against Filomena. Filomena questioned the Justice of the Peace Court's jurisdiction, arguing that title to the property was involved and must be decided first. Her challenge was overruled, and the Justice of the Peace Court ruled in favor of Nierras, ordering Filomena to vacate and pay damages. Filomena appealed to the Court of First Instance but failed to file a supersedeas bond. Nierras moved for execution, which the respondent judge granted. Filomena then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to restrain the execution of the Justice of the Peace Court's judgment, arguing the Justice of the Peace Court lacked jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Justice of the Peace Court had jurisdiction to entertain the unlawful detainer case when the title to the property was questioned. Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution on the Justice of the Peace Court's judgment when the former allegedly lacked appellate jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is made permanent. The Justice of the Peace Court was divested of jurisdiction, and consequently, the Court of First Instance had no appellate jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court: The Court held that a Justice of the Peace Court loses jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case if, during the trial, it appears that the question of possession cannot be determined without first settling the question of title. Petitioner Filomena presented evidence showing that neither Enage nor Nierras ever took possession of the land and house, which remained in her continuous enjoyment. She had already filed a case (Civil Case No. 906) in the Court of First Instance to annul the supposed sale to Enage, which would vitally affect Nierras's subsequent purchase and right to possession. The circumstances, including the large assessed value of the property (P35,000) compared to the purported sale price (P10,000), supported her claim that the transaction was a mortgage, not an absolute sale, thus raising a substantial issue of title. The Court found that Filomena had made out a prima facie case and established a meritorious claim that the unlawful detainer case involved title, which must precede the determination of possession. On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and the propriety of certiorari: Since the Justice of the Peace Court lacked jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance had no appellate jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Consequently, the respondent judge was without authority to issue the writ of execution based on Filomena's failure to file a supersedeas bond. The Court found certiorari to be the proper remedy because an order for execution in a detainer case is interlocutory and not appealable, and it would be unjust to compel a party in long and peaceful possession to submit to summary ejection based on a potentially void judgment. The Court reiterated its stance in similar cases where it entertained petitions for certiorari based on lack of appellate jurisdiction due to the inferior court's want of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A Justice of the Peace Court loses jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case if it appears during the trial that the question of possession cannot be determined without first settling the question of title to the property, and the defendant has made out a prima facie case of ownership.