Saliwan v. Amores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellees filed a forcible entry case against defendants-appellants for recovery of possession of three parcels of agricultural land, alleging unlawful entry and ejection of tenants. Plaintiffs claimed possession in concept of owners, asserting they were nephews of the deceased Monico Amores, the original owner, and had taken possession after his death in 1945 as collateral heirs since Monico allegedly died without issue. Procedural History: The municipal court, after receiving evidence on ownership, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs based on prior physical possession, ordering the defendants to vacate. Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI conducted a pre-trial and trial de novo, where parties joined issues on the defendants' filiation as children of Monico Amores and their prior physical possession. The CFI found that the defendants were indeed the children of Monico Amores and Valeriana Daep, and thus his sole heirs. Despite finding the plaintiffs' possession unlawful and acknowledging the defendants' ownership by succession, the CFI ordered the defendants to vacate the lands and restore possession to the plaintiffs to maintain the status quo, citing that plaintiffs could not be turned out by force and defendants should have resorted to legal remedies. The Petition: Defendants-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court on purely questions of law, arguing that the CFI erred in ordering them to vacate the lands despite finding them to be the lawful owners by succession and the plaintiffs' possession to be unlawful.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in ordering the defendants-appellants to vacate the lands despite finding them to be the lawful owners by hereditary succession and the plaintiffs' possession to be unlawful. Whether the municipal court lost its jurisdiction over the forcible entry case due to the necessary involvement of the issue of ownership. Whether the Court of First Instance, on appeal, had the jurisdiction to try the case on the merits in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the judgment of the lower court, dismissing the complaint and declaring the defendants-appellants as children of Monico Amores and owners of the lands in question by right of succession, duly entitled to the possession thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of First Instance's error in ordering defendants to vacate: The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in declaring the plaintiffs entitled to possession and ordering the defendants to vacate. Having found that the defendants were the lawful owners by hereditary succession and that the plaintiffs' possession was unlawful, the lower court should have dismissed the complaint instead of restoring the parties to the status quo as if it were still a forcible entry case. The Court emphasized that the issues of possession de jure and ownership were squarely submitted and resolved in favor of the defendants. On the municipal court's loss of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court affirmed that the municipal court lost its jurisdiction over the forcible entry case. This loss of jurisdiction occurred because the issue of ownership was necessarily involved and was joined by the parties. The plaintiffs claimed ownership as collateral heirs, while the defendants claimed ownership as direct heirs. It was impossible to decide the question of bare possession without first settling the question of ownership, thus divesting the municipal court of its limited jurisdiction in forcible entry cases. On the Court of First Instance's jurisdiction on appeal: The Supreme Court held that while the municipal court lost jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance, on appeal, could try the case on the merits in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. This was based on Rule 40, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, which allows the CFI to try the case if the parties submit to its jurisdiction without objection. In this case, the parties not only did not object but actively invoked the original jurisdiction of the CFI by submitting the issues of filiation and ownership and presenting evidence thereon. The Court noted that dismissing the case on appeal due to the municipal court's lack of jurisdiction would lead to needless delay and multiplicity of suits.
Main Doctrine
In a forcible entry case where the issue of ownership is necessarily involved and has been joined by the parties, the municipal court loses jurisdiction, and the Court of First Instance, on appeal, may try the case on the merits in the exercise of its original jurisdiction if the parties submit to it without objection.