DOMINGO CRUZ AND CRESCENCIA AUSTRIA, PETITIONERS, VS. EULALIO GARCIA, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, MANUEL JOAQUIN, AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

The respondent Manuel Joaquin filed an ejectment suit in the justice of the
peace court of Pasay, Rizal, against the petitioners Domingo Cruz and Crescencia
Austria, the complaint alleging in the main that the respondent had bought the
house situated at No. 18 O’Farrell Street, Pasay, Rizal, from one Eulalio Algoso
on April 16, 1946, and that prior to, and at the time of the purchase, the
petitioners were in possession of said house. In their answer, the petitioners
alleged that they are the sole and absolute owners of the property in question
and that the alleged vendor, Eulalio Algoso, was never its owner. The justice of
the peace court, after denying a motion for dismissal filed by the petitioners,
allowed the respondent Manuel Joaquin to present his evidence and thereafter
rendered a judgment ordering the petitioners to vacate the house and to pay a
monthly rental of P30. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the
petitioners reiterated the defenses set up in the court of origin. In line with
their theory, the petitioners did not deposit in the Court of First Instance the
rental awarded by the justice of the peace court, whereupon the respondent
Manuel Joaquin moved for immediate execution. In their opposition, the
petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the justice of the peace court, the case involving a
question of ownership. This opposition was overruled, and the Court of First
Instance issued an order for execution. Hence, the present original petition for
certiorari was instituted by the herein petitioners against Honorable Eulalio
Garcia, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Manuel Joaquin and the
provincial sheriff of Rizal, and it is prayed that the order of execution be set
aside, that the proceedings held before the justice of the peace court of Pasay
be declared null and void, and that the respondent judge be ordered to desist
from further proceeding with the case.

There can be no doubt that under the pleadings as well in the justice of the
peace court as in the Court of First Instance, the principal issue relates to
the ownership of the house in dispute, and that any question of possession that
may be involved necessarily depends upon the result of the inquiry into the
title. In other words, it is clear that the petitioners cannot be ousted without
a judicial finding that they are not the owners. As a matter of fact, the
complaint filed in the justice of the peace court does not allege any cause of
action against the petitioners for forcible entry or unlawful detainer within
the meaning of section 1 of Rule of Court No. 72. The suit should, therefore,
have been dismissed by the said justice of the peace court; and the Court of
First Instance of Rizal did not acquire appellate jurisdiction over the
case.

The case at bar is substantially on all fours with Peñalosa and Peñalosa
vs. Garcia (78 Phil., 245) and Torres and Paglinawan vs. Peña (78
Phil., 231). Conformably to our decisions therein, judgment is hereby entered,
ordering the respondent judge to take cognizance of, and proceed with, the case
in question in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and annulling the
order of execution issued therein, by said respondent judge. So ordered, with
costs against the respondent Manuel Joaquin.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo,
Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, Hontiveros, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ.,
concur.