REGINO G. AQUIZAP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. EUGENIO BASILIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Sometime in 1943 Regino G. Aquisap filed “Civil Case No. 1, por
Detentacion, dated July 28, 1943″ with the just­ice of the peace court
of San Marcelino, Zambales,
against Eugenio Basilio and
Santiago Amos.  Judgment was rendered on September 25, 1943, sentencing the
defendant “to vacate and restore possession of the land to him and to pay
damages and costs”.  Although Basilio received a copy of the decision, he remained in
possession of the land, planted it to palsy in 1944, 1945 and 1946 and,
according to Aquizap, “reaped and harvested for
himself, exclusively,” 16 cavanes of palsy for
each agricultural year or 48 cavanes all told.  In November, 1946 the deputy sheriff of Zambales, by force of a writ of execution issued by the
said JP court on October 23, 1946, “constituted himself in the place and
delivered the posses­sion of the same” to Aquizap.

On December 10, 1946
Aquizap filed a complaint (CC 1150) with the Court of
First Instance of Zambales, “asking payment of
certain amount of money and damages” against Basilio
and others.  On July 29, 1953 this complaint was dismissed, for Aquizap’s failure to appear when the case was called for
hear­ing, “without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint”.

On November 3, 1953 Aquizap filed the
present action (CC 1631) with the same CFI of Zambales,
alleging that Ba­silio’s illegal possession of the
premises in the years 1944, 1945 and 1946, caused him to suffer “damages and
prejudice” to the extent of 48
cavanes of palay,
represent­ing the harvest for the
said agricultural years, at P11 per Cavan, or a total equivalent sum of P528, and
“other damages in the amount
of P200.00, representing expenses and the rea­sonable value of his professional
works in handling the case”.  He prayed that

“judgment be rendered: (a) sentencing
the defend­ants to pay the
plaintiff the amount of 48 cavanes of
palsy or its equivalent value in
the sum of P528.00, Philippine Currency, plus its legal in­terest until it is
fully paid; (b) sentencing the defendants to pay another sum of P200.00 for dam­ages
caused against him; and (c) ordering the de­fendants to pay the cost.”

After filing his answer to the complaint, Basilio
died.  He was substituted by his
“heirs and successors in interest”, namely, Luciano,
Ceferino, Francisca, Pio, Silverio, Ricardo, Tomas and Florentino,
all surnamed Basilio, and Maria Concepcion.  Against these defendants, Aquisap
then filed an amended complaint
which reproduced verbatim the allegations and prayer of the
first complaint, with the
addition of a paragraph re­citing that the said amended complaint was filed
“only to make (them) party defendants, by substitution according to law *
* *, who are the heirs and successors in interest of the said de­ceased
original defendant, Eugenio Basilio“.

The heirs-defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint,
averring that it does not state a cause of action; that the cause of action, if
any, does not accrue against
then; and that the action is barred by the statute of limita­tions.  In spite of opposition by the plaintiff, the
lower court dismissed the amended complaint on the ground that it is
“barred by the statute of limitations.” The plaintiff appealed to the
Court of Appeals after denial of his mo­tion
for reconsideration of the order of dismissal.  Because only questions of law are involved,
the appeal was certified to us.

The appellant’s 1946 action seeking
recovery of the sum of P528 was dismissed on July 29, 1953 for his failure to ap­pear,
“without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint.” It was
obviously in accordance with this reservation that he filed the present action on November 3, 1953. 
By then, how­ever, the Court of First
Instance of Zambales
had lost juris­diction because the Judiciary Act of 1948, which took affect on June 17, 1948, gave inferior
courts “exclusive original jurisdiction where . . . the amount of the
demand does not exceed two thousand pesos, exclusive of interest and
costs.”^[1]

It may indeed be true that at the time the appellant filed his
action in 1946 the Court of First instance had ju­risdiction of his claim since
the former law^[2]
on the juris­diction of courts placed cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest and costs, amounts to P600 or more, within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the courts of first instance.  But it
is a rule firmly imbedded in jurisprudence that jurisdic­tion is determined by
the statute in force at the time of the filing of the action,^[3]
and since the present action was filed in 1953, the Judiciary Act of 1948,
which had earlier taken effect, governed the jurisdiction of courts.

The reservation of the appellant’s action made in the order of
dismissal of July 29, 1953
did not make the present action a continuation of that which was thereby
dismissed.  The notation in the order
that the dismissal was “without prejudice to the filing of a new
complaint” was intended merely to avoid the effects of the Rules of Court
provision^[4]
that dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to appear is equi­valent to
“an adjudication on the merits [with prejudice] unless otherwise
provided by the court,” but it did not render
the order any less final.  The order here in question is not like
the “sin perjuicio” decision which this
Court condemned as a nullity in Director of Lands v.
Sanz^[5]
because it did not contain” a statement of the facts which were essential to a
clear understanding of the issues presented by the respective parties as to the
facts involved.”^[6]
The order of dismissal in this case is complete in all details and, though
without pre­judice, nonetheless finally disposed of the matter.  The result is that the jurisdiction which the
Court of First Instance of Zambales had acquired in 1946 under Act 136 was fully
discharged and terminated.  The present
action, then, is a completely new action which should have taken into account
the law in force at the time of its filing.

Since the totality of the demands contained in the amended
complaint of the appellant is way below P2,000, it was plainly below the
minimum jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance under section 88 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948, and therefore this Court is without appellate
jurisdiction to review this case.

In view of the conclusion we have thus reached, we
deem it unnecessary to pass upon the issues
raised by the parties.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is dismissed, and the proceedings
in the lower court are set aside, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, JP, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., did not take
part.

^[1]
Sec. 88. The jurisdiction of inferior courts has been in­creased to P10,000 by
Republic Act 3828, June 22, 1963.

^[2]
Act 136, secs. 56 and 68.

^[3]
See, e.g., Macondray & Co.
v. Yangtsse Ins. Ass’n
51 Phil. 789 (1928); Rilloraza v. Arciaga, L-23848, Oct. 31, 1967; People v.
Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715 (1933).

^[4]
Rule 30, sec. 3, now Rule 17, sec. 3.

^[5]
45 Phil. 117 (1923).

^[6]
Id. at 121.