8/9/2019 G.R NO L-2450 MAY 31, 1949.doc
1/3
Search
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949
RONICA RUPERTO, petitioner,
FERINO FERNANDO a ! LUCIO M. TIANCO, "#!$% o& M# '(')a* Co#+
o& R' a* C' y, respondents.
edes, Diaz & Poblador and Jose A. Buendia for petitioner.an
Florentino for respondents.
RIA, J.
m the record before us, it appears that a complaint of ejectment
as filed b! Ceferino Fernando, one of the respondentshis case,
a"ainst #eronica Ruperto, petitioner, ith the municipal court of
Ri$al Cit!, in hich the follo in", amon"ers, is alle"ed%
&. 'hat the plaintiff is the e(clusive and la ful lessee of
a store space at the )ibertad Public Mar*et, Ri$al Cit!, b!virtue
of a lease contract e(ecuted and entered into b! and bet een Rufino
F. Mateo, Ma!or, Ri$al Cit!, and CeferinoFernando, as lessor and
lessee respectivel!, under date of March +, - /, as per cop! of the
lease contract heretoattached as E(hibit A and formin" part of this
complaint0
defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the "round 1 2 that the
court has no jurisdiction over the case because it is notable of
pecuniar! estimation, and 1&2 that the complaint does not state
a cause of action.
opposition to motion to dismiss as filed b! the plaintiff in
hich the latter states the follo in"%
'he 3uestion at issue is clear% 4ho is le"all! entitled to the
possession of the space in the )ibertad Public Mar*et5 6nother
ords% 4ho has a better leasehold ri"ht5 'he plaintiff or the
defendant5 'he ans er is inescapable, the plaintiff has a better
leasehold ri"ht. 'he defendant claims she has a better leasehold
ri"ht based upon a contract e(ecuted b!and bet een the cit! ma!or
and the plaintiff. 'he cit! treasurer7s permit as issued not in
accordance ith the
prescribed rules, re"ulations and practice of the cit! in a
ardin" mar*et stalls. 6t is the practice of the cit! to leasestore
space b! the treasurer. 'he court has jurisdiction, therefor. 'he
jurisdiction of the court in an action of forcibleentr! and
detainer is not lost even if the 3uestion of o nership or title is
raised in the ans er of the defendant as heldin the case of Mediran
vs. Villanueva , 89 Phil., 9:&. 'he fundamental issue, to
repeat, in the instant case is that the
justice of the peace court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the
ri"ht of possession, and the defendant in an action beforethe
justice of the peace to recover possession cannot deprive the court
of such jurisdiction b! merel! claimin"o nership or title to the
propert! 1Mediran vs. #illanueva, 89 Phil., 9:&2.
municipal court denied the motion to dismiss for lac* of merit
on the "round that the defendant bases his contention thatcourt has
no jurisdiction over the case on facts not alle"ed in the
complaint, and hence the filin" of the present civil
8/9/2019 G.R NO L-2450 MAY 31, 1949.doc
2/3
on of certiorari, hich ma! properl! be considered as of
prohibition, because the principal remed! sou"ht is to
preventrespondent jud"e from ta*in" co"ni$ance of the case for lac*
of jurisdiction.
respondent jud"e is not correct in holdin" that, in a motion to
dismiss on the "round of lac* of jurisdiction, theendant cannot
;base his ar"uments on 3uestion of facts not touched in the
complaint and hich parta*es the nature ofcial defenses, to be prove
b! presentation of evidence.; A motion to dismiss under Rule / of
the Rules of Court, is nota demurrer provided for in the old Code
of Civil Procedure that must be based onl! on the facts alle"ed in
the
mplaint. E(cept here the "round is that the complaint does state
no cause of action hich must be based onl! on the"ations in the
complaint, a motion to dismiss ma! be based on facts not alle"ed
and ma! even den! those alle"ed in the
mplaint0 and that is the reason h! it is set for hearin" for the
presentation of evidence in support of and a"ainst thetention of
the defendant.
he present case, althou"h no evidence as adduced in support of
the contention of the defendant, the complaint and theosition to
the motion to dismiss clearl! sho that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject
8/9/2019 G.R NO L-2450 MAY 31, 1949.doc
3/3
al Cit! are too technical for purposes of substantial
justice.
complaint filed b! Ceferino Fernando has raised a case of
ille"al detainer and, therefore, ithin the jurisdiction ofrior
court here is as instituted.
purpose of the summar! proceedin"s outlined b! the rules in
cases of ille"al detainer is for e(peditious settlement
oftroversial possession, as such controversies ma! "ive occasion to
disturbance to peace and order. 'he purpose is to nip in
the bud a dispute hich ma! lead to more serious conflicts and
conse3uences. 'hat purpose is defeated b! the majorit!
decision.vote to den! the petition.
)a phil Project < Arellano )a Foundation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/may1949/gr_l-2450_1949.html#tophttp://history.back%281%29/
