Quimpo v. Dela Victoria
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-respondents filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession with damages against defendant-petitioner. Subsequently, they filed another case for forcible entry over the same parcel of land, praying for the defendant to vacate, deliver possession, and pay monthly rentals and attorney's fees. Procedural History: Defendant-petitioner moved to dismiss the forcible entry case due to the pendency of the other action, which was denied. He was declared in default for failure to file an answer, and the City Court rendered a decision ordering him to vacate, deliver possession, and pay monthly rentals. Defendant-petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), reiterating his arguments for dismissal and also moving for immediate execution of the City Court decision. The CFI denied the motion to dismiss, granted the immediate execution, and subsequently dismissed the defendant-petitioner's appeal. The Petition: Defendant-petitioner filed a petition for review, assailing the CFI's orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction due to a void verification, error in not dismissing the forcible entry case due to pendency of another action, error in granting immediate execution, error in awarding rentals without evidence, and error in dismissing his appeal despite raising a legal issue on the denial of the motion to dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether the City Court acquired jurisdiction over the forcible entry action despite an allegedly void verification of the complaint. Whether the CFI erred in not dismissing the forcible entry complaint due to the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause. Whether the CFI erred in granting the immediate execution of the City Court decision before resolving the issue of the pendency of another action. Whether the CFI erred in awarding P500.00 monthly rental without sufficient evidence. Whether the CFI erred in dismissing the appeal of the defendant-petitioner who was declared in default.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Court of First Instance, finding no reversible error. The petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and void verification: The Court held that the verification of the complaint, while potentially insufficient for not explicitly stating the allegations were true of his "own knowledge," is not a jurisdictional defect. Citing Villasanta vs. Bautista and Oshita vs. Republic, the Court reiterated that the requirement for verification is formal, not jurisdictional, and its insufficiency does not render the proceedings void. Furthermore, the defendant-petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the City Court by filing a motion to dismiss and later by filing a motion for reconsideration and an appeal, thereby submitting himself to the court's jurisdiction. Citing Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, the Court ruled that a party cannot question the jurisdiction of a court after invoking it to secure affirmative relief, as this is barred by laches and public policy. On the pendency of another action: The Court found no error in the denial of the motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia. While there might be identity of parties and subject matter, the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for in the forcible entry case (possession) and the quieting of title case (ownership) are distinct. The Court emphasized that in forcible entry, the issue is whether one can forcibly eject prior occupants, even assuming a valid permit, whereas in quieting of title, the issue is ownership. The Court stated that an owner cannot take the law into his own hands, and submitting to the high-handed conduct of another until ownership is adjudged is against justice and equity. On immediate execution: The Court held that the contention regarding immediate execution was without merit. Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates immediate execution of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in ejectment cases, unless exceptions due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence apply. The purpose is to prevent further damages from loss of possession. The defendant may stay execution by perfecting an appeal and filing a supersedeas bond, and by depositing the monthly rentals. Since the defendant-petitioner perfected his appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond and deposit the rentals, he cannot complain against the immediate execution. On the award of monthly rental: The Court considered the P500.00 monthly rental as a factual issue. In the absence of proof of abuse of discretion by the City Court, the Supreme Court was not inclined to disturb the finding. The Court noted that this award could be raised as a defense in the quieting of title case where rentals were also prayed for. On the dismissal of the appeal: Given that the issues raised against the City Court's decision were found to be unmeritorious, the Court deemed it irrelevant to discuss whether the defendant-petitioner could appeal a judgment where he was declared in default.
Main Doctrine
The insufficiency or defect in the verification of a complaint for forcible entry is not a jurisdictional defect and does not render the proceedings void. Furthermore, a party who invokes the jurisdiction of a court and submits to its proceedings cannot later question that jurisdiction after an adverse decision.