[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [MTCs] 1

[eamtrinidad]

Ortigas & Co., Ltd v. CA

[GR NO. 52488] | [July 25, 1981] | [Abad Santos, J.]
CASE SUMMARY Must be recit ready. Important facts and ruling of the court plus
basis
Ortigas filed with Municipal Court a complaint for illegal detainer against Belmonte,
praying among others, that the defendant and his heirs vacate the lot and that the
residential building constructed on the lot by the defendant be forfeited in favor of
Ortigas. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of Ortigas and granted the petition,
prompting Belmonte to file an appeal with CFI Rizal. Instead of filing a notice of
appeal, he filed instead a Motion to Dismiss, alleging lack of JD on the part of
Municipal Court and objection to the CFIs exercise of original JD over the case. The
CFI denied his appeal, but the CA decided in his favor, ruling that the Municipal Court
had no JD over the case. Ortigas filed an MR, which was denied by the CA, hence this
petition for review.
The SC held that although the Municipal Court had JD over illegal detainer suits, the
additional prayer of forfeiture of the residential building was beyond its scope to
decide, as provided for in Sec 44(b) of the Judiciary Act. Basically the Municipal Court
had no JD over the subject-matter of this case. Therefore, the CFI should have
dismissed the appeal outright. The CA likewise had no JD since appellate jurisdiction
over cases involving purely legal questions is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court.
FACTS
Petition for review of CA decision
March 25, 1974 Ortigas filed with Municipal Court of San Juan Rizal a complaint
for illegal detainer against Belmonte, praying for a judgment
o (1) ordering the defendant, his heirs, assigns or successors-in-interests to
vacate the subject lot and surrender full control thereof to the plaintiff;
o (2) declaring the residential building constructed on the lot by the
defendant as forfeited in plaintiff's favor; and
o (3) condemning the defendant to pay a monthly rent of P5,000.00 from
July 18, 1971, up to the time he vacates the premises; attorney's fees in
the amount of P7,000.00; exemplary damages in such amount as the
court may fix; and the costs.
Belmonte filed his answer
Municipal Court rendered judgment in favor of Ortigas
Belmonte filed an MR, which was denied
Belmonte then appealed to CFI Rizal
o Instead of filing memorandum of appeal, he filed a MTD under Rule 40 Sec
11 of RoC
o "SECTION 11. Lack of Jurisdiction. A case tried by an inferior court
without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal
by the Court of First Instance. But instead of dismissing the case, the
Court of First Instance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may try
the case on the merits if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to
the trial without any objection to such jurisdiction."

Belmonte alleged lack of JD on the part of Municipal Court and manifested his
objection to the CFIs exercise of original JD, seeking dismissal of the civil case in
the Municipal Court
CFI denied the MTD, rendered a decision affirming Municipal Court decision, and
issued a writ of execution
December 1, 1978 Belmonte simultaneously filed with CFI a notice of appeal
and with CA a motion to extend time to file petition for review
Belmonte filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for Certiorari and prohibition,
with preliminary injunction, assailing:
o (a) the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of San Juan and the Court of First
Instance of Rizal;
o (b) the propriety or validity of the judgment on the pleadings rendered by
the Municipal Court of San Juan; and
o (c) the propriety or validity of the Writ of Execution issued by the Court of
First Instance of Rizal
CA gave due course to the petition, deciding in favor of Belmonte, and held that
the Municipal Court had no JD over the case nor power to resolve controverted
issues on the pleadings
Ortigas filed MR with CA but it was denied, hence this petition.

PROCEDURE SUMMARY
Action (Petition for review, appeal
of CA decision etc.)
Petitioner: Complaint for illegal detainer
+ prayer for forfeiture of property
Respondent: Filed MR
Respondent: Appeal to CFI + MTD
Respondent: Notice of appeal to CFI
Respondent: Petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction
Petitioner: Filed MR
Petitioner: Petition for review

Decision (RTC: petition denied)

Municipal Court: Granted
Municipal Court: Denied
CFI: Denied
N/A
CA: Granted
CA: Denied
SC: Everything is wrong lol

ISSUE
1. WON Municipal Court had JD NO
2. WON CFI had JD NO
3. WON CA had JD to render challenged decision NO
RATIO
1. WON Municipal Court had JD NO
a. The complaint for unlawful detainer filed with the Municipal Court of San
Juan sought not only the ejectment of the defendant from the subject lot,
but likewise prayed that the residential building constructed by him on the
same lot be declared forfeited in plaintiff's favor.
b. This is beyond the allowable scope of unlawful detainer suit, which should
be limited to the issue of possession of real property

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [MTCs] 3

[eamtrinidad]
c. The case could not qualify as an exception to the jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance under Sec. 44(b) of the Judiciary Act which provides that
CFI shall have original JD:
(b) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real
property, or any interest therein, or the legality of any tax, impost or
assessment, except actions of forcible entry into and detainer on lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon city
and municipal courts;"
2. WON CFI had JD NO
a. Since the case was decided by the Municipal Court without jurisdiction
over the subject matter thereof, said case should have been dismissed by
the CFI Rizal when the same was brought before it on appeal
b. Under Rule 40 Sec 11 RoC (cited in detailed facts), CFI could have validly
assumed original JD over the case, but the rule doesnt apply since
Belmonte objected to it.
3. WON CA had JD NO
a. Since appellate jurisdiction over cases involving purely legal questions is
exclusively vested in this Court by Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act (R.A. No.
296), it is readily apparent that the decision under review was rendered by
the Court of Appeals without jurisdiction and should, therefore, be set
aside.
DECISION
WHEREFORE, without prejudice to the right of Ortigas to file the proper action
with the proper court, the following are hereby set aside for lack of jurisdiction:
o (1) the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 1979, in CAG.R. No. 08609-SP;
o (2) the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dated September 22,
1978, in Civil Case No. 28389; and
o (3) the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the Municipal Court of San
Juan, Rizal in Civil Case No. 3773.
No pronouncement as to costs.