ISIDRO DE LEON, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. JUDGE CRISANTO ARAGON, MUNICIPAL COURT OF MANILA, PACITA TUASON-PRINCIPE AND FEDERICO PRINCIPE, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (C.
C. No. 42567) dismissing petitioner Isidro de Leon’s petition for
certiorari to set aside an order of the Municipal Court of Manila
denying his motion to dismiss and setting for hearing Civil Case No.
42567 for ejectment.

The ejectment suit in question was brought by Pacita Tuason
Principe, assisted by her husband Federico Principe against petitioner
Isidro de Leon, on January 5, 1960, to recover possession of a portion
of a parcel of land leased by plaintiff to defendant on a
month-to-month basis, and back rentals. The complaint alleged, among
other things:

“1.—That plaintiff is of legal age, married to
Federico Principe and residing at Ciriaco Tuason Street, Singalong,
Manila; and defendant is likewise of legal age and residing at No. 48
Dian Street, Makati, Eizal, where he may be served with summons;

2.—That
plaintiff leased to defendant a portion of a parcel of land of which
she is the owner and on which the house of the defendant is erected, on
a month-to-month basis at a monthly rental of P100.00 up to February,
1959 at P130.00 from March, 1959, payable in advance within the first
five days of each month.”

When the case was called for trial, defendant moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The
theory of the motion to dismiss was that since the complaint averred
that defendant had her house on the land in question, yet it did not
state where said land was located, while it did allege that defendant
was residing in Makati, Rizal; whence it followed from such allegations
that the land in dispute was also located in Makati, Rizal, which was
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila.
Without wasting any time, plaintiff moved to be allowed to amend her
complaint by inserting therein the exact location in Manila of the
leased premises, and the motion having been granted, plaintiff inserted
in paragraph 2 of the complaint the words “LOC MRS. 1272 SAN ANDRES
MLA.”, meaning “located at 1272 San Andres, Manila”. Thereafter, the
inferior court denied the motion to dismiss and set the case for
hearing on a later date.

Insisting that the original
complaint did not confer jurisdiction upon the municipal court so that
said court did not have the jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the
complaint, defendant applied for a writ of certiorari with the Court of
First Instance of Manila to have the ejectment case dismissed and all
proceedings taken therein annulled. The Court of First Instance,
however, found that the municipal court did acquire jurisdiction over
the case; that venue was not improperly laid, and that the amendment of
the complaint only tended to particularize the location of the land in
dispute; and, accordingly, dismissed the petition for certiorari. From
this judgment, defendant Isidro de Leon appealed to this Court.

There is no merit in the appeal. As correctly held by the court below,
the complaint, being clearly and admittedly one for illegal detainer,
conferred jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the case upon the
Municipal Court of Manila, under sec. 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948,
as amended, that gives the inferior courts original jurisdiction over
forcible entry and detainer proceedings. As the municipal court had
jurisdiction over the action, the question whether or not the suit was
brought in the place where the land in dispute is located was no more
than a matter of venue (M.R.R. vs.
Atty.-Gen., 20 Phil., 523), and the court, in the exercise of its
jurisdiction over the case, could determine whether venue was properly
or improperly laid. It having appealed at the hearing of the motion to
dismiss that the land in dispute was indeed located in Manila and that
it was only through mere inadvertence or oversight that such
information was omitted in the complaint, defendant’s objection became
a pure technicality, and the municipal court committed no error in
allowing the amendment of the complaint by inserting therein the exact
location in Manila of the land in dispute and in denying the motion to
dismiss.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed and the appeal dismissed. Costs against defendant-appellant Isidro de Leon.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.