Gonzalez v. Salas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Tranquilino Gonzalez and Paz Javellana sold a property to respondents Trinidad Ledesma and Ignacio Arroyo on August 7, 1923, for P11,000 with a right to repurchase within one year. It was stipulated that the vendors would remain in possession as lessees, paying P1,320 annually. The contract was renewed on August 7, 1924, extending the repurchase period to August 7, 1925. Petitioners failed to repurchase the property by the extended deadline, consolidating ownership in the respondents by operation of law. Procedural History: On November 3, 1925, respondents filed a complaint for unlawful entry and detainer and collection of rents in the justice of the peace court of Iloilo. Petitioners answered, denying the allegations and asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction because the litigation involved title to real property. The justice of the peace declared himself without jurisdiction. Respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The Petition: Petitioners objected to the Court of First Instance's jurisdiction, arguing it derived from the justice of the peace court's lack of jurisdiction. Despite this, the Court of First Instance proceeded to hear the case on its merits, rendering a judgment ordering petitioners to vacate the property and pay rents. Petitioners further alleged that respondents sold the property to C. N. Hodges before the judgment became final, without their knowledge or consent. Petitioners filed for a writ of certiorari to nullify the proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case for unlawful entry and detainer on appeal from the justice of the peace court. Whether the sale of the property by the respondents to C. N. Hodges, while the judgment was not yet final, warrants the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The respondent judge did not exceed his authority or jurisdiction in trying the case for unlawful entry and detainer. The sale of the property to C. N. Hodges does not justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance: The Court held that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to hear the case on appeal. The action for unlawful entry and detainer was filed on November 3, 1925, three months after the expiration of the extended repurchase period (August 7, 1925). By this time, ownership had consolidated in the respondents. The Court cited Alderete vs. Amandoron and Angosto (46 Phil. 488), stating that in a sale with pacto de retro, where the transaction is a true sale and ownership has consolidated, the vendee may maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer against a vendor withholding possession, and a justice of the peace may take cognizance of such action if brought within the statutory period. The Court clarified that a vendor remaining on the land as a tenant of the vendee is estopped from denying the latter's right to possession upon termination of the lease. The Court distinguished this from Falcon and Falcon vs. Barretto (26 Phil., 72), noting that the latter case's dicta suggesting that a vendee under pacto de retro can never maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer were erroneous. The Court emphasized that a sale with pacto de retro transfers legal title, which includes the right of possession. The Court also noted that petitioners' own admissions at the trial indicated their intention was a sale with right of repurchase, not merely a mortgage, and that they understood the contents of the documents signed. Article 1572 of the Civil Code, which prohibits ousting a lessee before the repurchase period expires, was deemed inapplicable as the complaint was filed after the expiration of the extended term. On the sale of the property to C. N. Hodges: The Court found no justification for issuing a writ of certiorari regarding the sale of the property to C. N. Hodges. Since the respondents' title and ownership were consolidated before the judgment became final due to the petitioners' failure to repurchase within the agreed time, the respondents had the right to dispose of the property. The sale did not affect the validity of the original proceedings or the jurisdiction of the court.
Main Doctrine
A vendee under a sale with pacto de retro, where the vendor remains in possession as a lessee, may maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer against the vendor if the action is brought within the statutory period after the consolidation of ownership in the vendee, and the justice of the peace court has jurisdiction over such action, even if the vendor asserts a claim of ownership.