ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP v.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. L-52488 – July 25, 1981
J. xxx

Topic : Jurisdiction – Specific Jurisdiction of Courts – Supreme Court

Doctrine : all cases which may have be erroneously brought to the Supreme Court or to the Court
of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court which shall hear the same as if it has originally been brought
before it

Petitioners : Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership

Respondents : Court of Appeals and Maximo F. Belmonte

Case Summary:
Ortigas & Co. filed an action before the Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal for unlawful detainer
against Belmonte, and prayed for the forfeiture of the residential building built by Belmonte in
favor of Ortigas. The Court ruled in favor of Ortigas. Belmonte appealed before the CFI and CA,
objecting that the Municipal Court and CFI had no jurisdiction over the case. The CA denied the
appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the case as it
was a case of unlawful detainer and rights and obligations of parties, beyond the jurisdiction of the
Court. As such, the judgement of the Municipal Court, CFI, and CA were set aside by the Supreme
Court.

Facts:
 Municipal Court of San Juan
o March 25, 1974 : Ortigas filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Belmonte,
praying that defendant vacate subject lot and surrender full control thereof to the plaintiff,
declare the residential building constructed n the lot be forfeited in plaintiff’s favor,
condemn defendant to pay monthly rent of P5,000.00 from July 18, 1971 until he vacates
premises, attorney’s fees of P7,000.00 and exemplary damages
 Orders defendant and all persons claiming right under him to vacate Lot 6, Block
31, Psd66759 with an area of 840 sq. m. at Greenhills Subdivision 4, San Juan,
Rizal
 Forfeited improvements in favor of plaintiff
 Monthly rental of P2,500.00 from July 18, 1981 until defendant vacates
 Attorney’s fees of P5,000.00
 CFI Rizal
o February 13, 1978 : Belmonte filed a motion to dismiss under Sec 11, Rule 40 of the
Rules of Court, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of San Juan and
objecting to the exercise of original jurisdiction of CFI Rizal.
 Court denied motion to dismiss and subsequently affirmed the decision of the
Municipal Court
 Writ of execution issued by CFI Rizal
 December 1, 1978 : Belmonte simultaneously filed with CFI Rizal a notice of appeal and CA a
motion to extend time to file petition for review.
o December 7, 1978 : CA granted extension
o December 20, 1978 : Belmonte filed petition for certiorari and prohibition, with
preliminary injunction
 Assailing jurisdiction of Municipal Court of San Juan
 Assailing jurisdiction of CFI Rizal
 
Propriety or validity of the judgement on the pleadings rendered by the
Municipal Court
 Propriety or validity of the Writ of Execution of CFI Rizal
 Court of Appeals
o October 12, 1979 : CA promulgated decision in CA-GR 08609-SP setting aside
September 22, 1978 decision of CFI Rizal in Civil Case 28389, affirming judgement of
Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal date December 19, 1976 in Civil Case 3773.
o Municipal Court of San Juan had no jurisdiction over the case nor power to resolve the
controverted issues on the pleadings
o January 15, 1980 : MR of Ortigas denied

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of Ortigas & Co, NO
o RA 296, Sec 17, states that appellate jurisdiction over cases involving purely legal
questions is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court. As such, a petition for review
was given due course. As such, the decision of the CA is set aside
2. W/N the decision of CFI Rizal affirming the decision of the Municipal Court of San Juan and
considering the appeal perfected in time is valid NO
o Sec 31 of the Judiciary Act “all cases which may have be erroneously brought to the
Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court which shall
hear the same as if it has originally been brought before it
o The case at bar is that of illegal detainer seeking ejectment of the defendant and the
forfeiture of the residential building constructed in favor of the plaintiff, exceeding the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Court as it was a matter not only of ownership of real
property but also that of rights and obligations of parties.
 SEC. 44. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.- Courts of First Instance shall have
original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(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;
o The Municipal Court clearly had no jurisdiction to render the assailed judgement, and as
such, it should be set aside. CFI Rizal should have dismissed the case when it was
brought for appeal.

Ruling: 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: (1) CA decision, (2) CFI Rizal decision,
(3) Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal judgement.

Dissent – (J. xxx):