7/28/2019 Batioco vs Quintero

1/2

Batioco vs Quintero Juan Ayala brought action against Fermin Supia and Gavina Batioco

o Supia and Batioco sold to plaintiff real property with right torepurchase within the year from January 2, 1931

o that within the year, Supia and Batioco would occupy saidpremises as TENANTS and that they failed to exercise theirright to redeem

o lease was subsequently terminatedo notwithstanding termination, Supia and Batioco unlawfully

withheld the possession of the property Supia and Batioco ANSWERED that KOS was not really a sale but a

MORTGAGE

Supia and Batioco now contend that the Justice of Peace of Pagbilao, Tayabas LOST JURISDICTION WHEN S AND P FILED THEIRANSWER

o no jurisdiction since property was not soldo

no more vendee-vendor relationshipo right to possess RESTED WHOLLY on the fact of sale

Held: applicable provisions of law are section 80 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and section 68 of Act No. 136, as amended. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

i. Instituted by person deprived of possessionii. Unlawful deprivation of the possession of any land or

building, by force, intimidation, threat, strategy orstealth

iii. Filed within 1 year from date of actual entry (but forcases of stealth and strategy, from date of knowledge of actual knowledge)

iv. At the MTC where property is locatedv. EXCEPT THAT: no landlord shall commence any action

against a tenant for restitution of possession of any landor building for failure to pay rent or to comply with theconditions of his lease, unless the tenant shall havefailed, for a period of three day, to pay the rent due or

comply with the conditions of his lease after demand

therefor

section 68 of Act No. 136, as amended by Act No. 3881, reads asfollows:

- In forcible entry and detainer proceedings the justice shallhave original jurisdiction , but he may receive evidence uponthe question of title therein solely for the purpose of determining the character and extent of possession and damages for detention .

The action may be brought by (1) anyone deprived of the possessionof any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy orstealth; (2) any landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person againstwhom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld

after the expiration or determination of the right to holdpossession, by virtue of any contract, express or impl ied; and (3) thelegal representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor,vendee, or any other person.

Supia and Batioco rely on: Falcon vs Falcon: jurisdiction based upon cases where sale is

admitted and ownership cannot be disputed. If the sale itself isdisputed that is, if an attempt is made to take from the parties thequality and relation of vendor and vendee there is presentedinstantly the question of ownership; and the right to possessionresting wholly upon the fact of sale, such right must wait and bedependent upon the determination of that question. When thequestion of title necessarily arises the justices court loses

jurisdiction. In essence, a question of ownership CANNOT ARISE.

See Kiong Pha vs. Ti Bun Lay: If the justice of the peace does take jurisdiction under such circumstances and an appeal is taken to theCourt of First Instance, the latter has no jurisdiction to determinethe question presented. An appeal from the judgment of the courtwhich has no jurisdiction does not give the appellate court

jurisdiction to try the cause.

7/28/2019 Batioco vs Quintero

2/2

Ayala relied on:

Mediran vs. Villanueva: when an action of FE and UD is instituted torecover possession, the defendant CAN defeat the proceeding bymerely asserting ownership in himself. Though the jurisdiction todetermine the question of ownership is vested exclusively in theSUPERIOR COURT, the lower court, HOWEVER, CAN DETERMINE

THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION AND ASSESS THE DAMAGES INCIDENTTO UNLAWFUL DETENTION WITH EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP ASBASIS.

Alderete vs. Amandoron and Angosto: that under no circumstancescan a vendee under a pacto de retro sale (buyer), maintain an actionof forcible entry and detainer against the vendor for the possessionof the land sold

o erroneous: A sale with pacto de retro transfers the legaltitle to the vendee and this, in the absence of an agreementto the contrary, carries with it the right of possession. Theinsertion of a stipulation for repurchase by the vendor in acontract of sale does not necessarily create any rightinconsistent with the right of ownership in the purchaser- itmerely creates an OPTION.

If these are the purposes of the summary proceeding of forcibleentry and detainer, the legal provision (sec. 3, Act No. 1627), whichmakes an exception of the case involving the question of ownership,must be strictly interpreted, and this exception is to be applied onlyto such cases as involve the question of ownership so necessarilythat it would be impossible to decide the question of merepossession without first settling that of ownership.

Doctrine:After a careful consideration of the whole question in the light of pertinentauthorities, we have come to the conclusion that (1) the purchaser under acontract of sale with right to repurchase, is a vendee within the meaningof section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (2) in an action of forcibleentry and detainer, the mere filing of an answer, claiming title to thepremises involved or raising the question of ownership, will not divest a

justice of the peace of jurisdiction.

If, however, on the trial it should appear that the action is not in factfor the recovery of the possession of the premises, but to determinea question of title, the court will have no authority to proceed, andthe case must be dismissed. In other words, where the question tobe determined is one of title, it will oust the court of jurisdiction.But the court has authority to proceed with the hearing of thecause until this fact is clearly established .

The court might still proceed until the evidence should disclosethat the question involved was one of title

Our statute clearly contemplates that the mere fact that thequestion of title is raised in the answer, should not oust a justice of the peace of jurisdiction; and so it provides that he may receiveevidence upon the question of title therein solely for the purposeof determining the character and extent of possession anddamages for detention. (Section 68 of Act No. 136, as amendedby Act No. 3881.)

Mickey Ingles says:The primal rule is that the principal issue must be that of possession, andthat ownership is merely ancillary, in which case the issue of ownership maybe resolved but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.It must sufficiently appear from the allegations in the complaint that what theplaintiff really and primarily seeks is the restoration of possession.Inferior court cannot adjudicate on the nature of ownership where therelationship of lessor and lessee has been sufficiently established in theejectment case, unless it is sufficiently established that there has been asubsequent change in or termination of the relationship between the parties.Where the question of how has prior possession hinges on the question of who the real owner of the disputed portion is, the inferior court may resolve

the issue of ownership and make a declaration as to the owner. But, it ismerely provisional, and does not bar nor prejudice an action between thesame parties involving the title to the land. (Asis v Asis Vda de Guevarra,2008)