Amor v. Krummer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Susano Amor is the owner of the premises located at No. 2050 (ground floor), Rizal Avenue, Manila. In March 1945, plaintiff discovered that defendants Elizabeth Krummer and Jose Che Kuak, without his knowledge or consent, leased the premises from co-defendant Francisco Gonzalez for a monthly rent of P900. Francisco Gonzalez had no authority from the plaintiff to rent the premises or collect rents. Plaintiff served notice to vacate on Krummer and Che Kuak on March 1, 1945, and demanded payment of rents, but they refused. Procedural History: The case was originally filed for ejectment in the municipal court of Manila. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, only Francisco Gonzalez answered the complaint. Krummer and Che Kuak were declared in default. The CFI denied their petition to lift the default, finding it inconsistent with the notice of appeal where Atty. R. Gonzalez Lloret appeared for all defendants. The CFI found the monthly rent of P900 excessive and appraised the reasonable value of use and occupation at P140 per month. The CFI rendered judgment declaring Krummer, Che Kuak, and Gonzalez without right to occupy the premises, ordering their restitution to the plaintiff, and ordering Krummer and Che Kuak to pay P140 per month from March 1945 until complete restitution, with legal interest. Francisco Gonzalez was ordered to abstain from meddling with the premises' possession and disposition. All defendants were ordered to pay costs. The Petition: Defendants-appellants appealed the CFI's judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the municipal court lacked original jurisdiction and the Court of First Instance appellate jurisdiction over the case. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in refusing to lift the default order against defendants Krummer and Che Kuak. Whether the judgment of the Court of First Instance is in accordance with the facts and the law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, with costs against the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The contention that the municipal court lacked original jurisdiction and the Court of First Instance appellate jurisdiction because the cause of action accrued more than one year prior to the suit was untenable. This issue was not raised in the lower courts, and both parties proceeded with the trial on the merits in the Court of First Instance without objection to its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that the cause of action, as established by the evidence, accrued less than one year before the suit was filed. Furthermore, even in cases of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter by an inferior court, Rule 40, Section 11 of the Rules of Court allows the Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, to try the case on the merits if the parties file their pleadings and proceed to trial without objection to such jurisdiction. This provision was applicable to the present case, as the parties participated in the proceedings before the CFI without raising any jurisdictional objections. On the refusal to lift default: The Court of First Instance did not err in refusing to lift the default order against defendants Krummer and Che Kuak. Their counsel's explanation that they were unable to find their original attorney and had just entrusted him with the case was inconsistent with the fact that the same counsel, Atty. R. Gonzalez Lloret, appeared for all the defendants in the notice of appeal. This inconsistency provided a valid ground for the trial court to deny the petition to lift the default, as it suggested a lack of genuine diligence or a potential dilatory tactic. On the merits of the judgment: The judgment of the Court of First Instance was found to be in accordance with the facts and the law. The evidence established that the plaintiff was the owner of the premises and that the defendants Krummer and Che Kuak leased the property from Francisco Gonzalez without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and without Gonzalez having any authority to lease or collect rents. The refusal of Krummer and Che Kuak to vacate despite notice and demand, and their continued occupation, justified the ejectment order. The court also correctly determined the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises, considering the excessive rent demanded by Gonzalez.
Main Doctrine
A court of first instance may try a case on the merits in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, even if the inferior court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, provided the parties file their pleadings and proceed to trial without objection to such jurisdiction.