Alderete v. Amandoron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 10, 1918, defendants sold two parcels of land to the plaintiff under pacto de retro. The defendants remained in occupation as tenants of the plaintiff. The defendants paid rent for 1920 but failed to pay for 1921. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed an action for forcible entry and detainer in the justice of the peace court. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, absolving them from the complaint. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction over an action for forcible entry and detainer filed by a vendee under a sale with pacto de retro against the vendor. Whether the plaintiff, as vendee under a sale with pacto de retro, could maintain an action for forcible entry and detainer due to the defendants' failure to pay rent.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed. The defendants are ordered to deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff. Costs are awarded to the plaintiff in the justice of the peace and Court of First Instance, but no costs in the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court: The Court clarified that while cases involving disputed ownership under a sale with pacto de retro must be brought in the Court of First Instance, as held in Falcon and Falcon vs. Barretto, not all such cases fall under this rule. When the transaction is a true sale with pacto de retro and the issue of ownership is not disputed, a justice of the peace court can take cognizance of a forcible entry and detainer action if brought within the legal time limit. The Court found that in the present case, the transaction was conceded to be an ordinary sale with pacto de retro, thus the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction. On the plaintiff's right to maintain the action: The Court held that a sale with pacto de retro transfers legal title to the vendee, which, in the absence of contrary agreement, includes the right of possession. The defendants, by attorning to the plaintiff and becoming his tenants, are estopped from disputing his title and right to possession upon termination of the lease. Their failure to pay rent gave the plaintiff the right to terminate the lease and oust them. Before disputing the plaintiff's title, the defendants must first surrender possession, which they failed to do, thus giving the plaintiff a valid cause of action under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Main Doctrine
A vendee under a sale with pacto de retro, who has acquired legal title and the right of possession, may maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer against the vendor for possession upon breach of the lease agreement, provided the issue of ownership is not disputed.