FELIPE C. ALVIAR ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAGUNA, RES…

On May 25, 1935, more than 720 tenants filed an action (civil
case No. 6663) in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against Colegio de San
Jose, praying that defendant be compelled to respect its contracts of lease with
plaintiffs on some parcels of lands located in San pedro Tunasan, Laguna. After
trial, judgment was rendered declaring that plaintiffs and their privies or
agents had no longer any right to contiune occupying the property in litigation
and they were ordered to vacate and deliver the same to the defendant. On
appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision
promulgated on July 31, 1940.

The property was later purchased by the Commonwealth of the
Philippines and came under the direct and exclusive management of the respondent
Rural Progress Administration. On October 9, 1946, an action was filed in the
Court of First Instance of the same province against the Rural Progress
Administration and others by numerous plaintiffs allegedly the same plaintiffs
in the former civil case No. 6663, or their agents or successors in interest. In
this new complaint, registered as civil case No. 8039, it is prayed that the
title of Colegio de San Jose on the property in litigation and the sale in favor
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines be declared null and void. Apparently,
this second complaint was dismissed on motion of the Rural Progress
Administration on the ground of res adjudicata and lack of cause of
action, and from the order of dismissal an appeal was taken to this Court.

Upon the other hand, the Rural Progress Administration filed
several complaints for forcible entry and detainer on teh same property and
againtst the same plaintiffs, their agents or successors in interest in the
justice of the peace court of San Pedro Tunasan, Laguna. To these complaints,
the defendants filed motions for dismissal alleging that the justice of the
peace court had no jurisdiction because there was already an action for title
pending then in the Court of First Instance, which was civil case No. 8039 above
mentioned. The justice of the peace denied the motion for dismissal on the
ground that the facts alleged in the complaints constitute forcible entry and
detainer falling within his jurisdiction. Wherefore, the defendants filed their
action for certiorari in the Court of First Instance, which was dismissed after
trial upon the ground that the proer remedy was appeal, and that, furthermore,
the respondent justice of the peace had jurisdiction over the subject matter and
over the persons of the parties. The order of dismissal was appealed to this
Court.

In the meantime, the cases for forcible entry and detainer were
tried by the justice of the peace court and judgments were rendered therein
against the defendants which have become final and executory, some of them
having been already executed and the others about to be executed. The defendants
asked for suspension of execution, but because said petition was denied they
filed the present petition for certiorari.

There is no doubt that the justice of the peace court of San
Pedro Tunasan, laguna, had jurisdiction over all the cases for forcible entyr
and detainer filed with it by the Rural Progress Administration. The pendency of
an action for title filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs in the Court
of First Instance is no good ground for impugning the jurisdiction of the
justice of the peace court. Furthermore, well known is the rule that an action
for ownership is not a bar to an action for forcible entry and detainer. Whether
title is necessarily involved in an action for forcible entry and detainer is a
question of fact to be determined from the evidence presented by both parties at
the trial, and that question can be reviewed only on appeal and not by
certiorari proceedings in the Court of First Instance.

If the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction over the
forcible entry and detainer cases, then it had also jurisdiction to try and
render judgments therein and order the execution of said judgments. True that an
action for certiorari had been filed in the Court of First Instance to set aside
the order of the justice of the peace court by which it assumed such
jurisdiction; but if no writ of preliminary injunction was issued therein by the
Court of First Instance against the justice of the peace court, the latter could
continue trying and deciding the said cases and order the execution of the
judgments rendered therein.

Petition is dismissed with costs against petitioners.

Paras, Feria, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.

MORAN, C. J.:

Justice Pablo voted for dismissal.