HEIRS OF JUAN AND NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA BY: PROCESO GERMINANDA, HEIR, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE RICARDO SALVANERA, MCTC-MAHAYAG-DUMINGAG-JOSEFINA, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

Heirs of Juan and Natividad Germinanda versus Judge Ricardo Salvanera

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Supreme Court against a municipal circuit trial judge, charging him with malfeasance and misfeasance, rendering a patently unjust judgment, gross ignorance of the law and established jurisprudence, incompetence, and serious misconduct for maliciously and intentionally delaying the resolution of ejectment cases in violation of the rules on summary procedure. The complainants are the heirs of Juan and Natividad Germinanda, who were the plaintiffs in two unlawful detainer cases assigned to the respondent's sala. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between an honest error of judgment and sanctionable ignorance of basic law, and because it restates the settled rule that a pending action on ownership does not bar an ejectment suit.

Procedural History

The complainants filed their complaint dated March 12, 1997 directly with the Supreme Court, an original administrative action against a judge of the lower court. The respondent filed his comment, and later a supplemental comment dated August 18, 1997. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted its memorandum dated December 2, 1999, finding merit in the complaint and recommending that the respondent be fined 2,000 pesos and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Supreme Court then resolved the case, adopting the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator except as to the suggested penalty.

Facts

The complainants were the plaintiffs in two cases for unlawful detainer assigned to the respondent's sala, one against Warlito Montealto and others, filed on September 18, 1996, and another against Dr. Emiliano Futalan and others, filed on January 14, 1997. The complaints uniformly alleged that the defendants occupied various portions of the complainants' lot covered by a certificate of title, initially by mere tolerance and later by virtue of lease agreements which the defendants violated by refusing to pay the agreed rentals.

In their answers, the defendants alleged that the ownership of the lot was under litigation in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Pagadian City, in a case entitled Municipality of Dumingag versus Natividad Vda. de Germinanda and others. In the first ejectment case, the respondent suspended the resolution of the case until the decision of the ownership case. In the second ejectment case, he considered the matter closed and terminated until such time as the higher court of Pagadian City shall rule otherwise in the ownership case.

The complainants alleged that the decisions in both cases contained no findings of fact and law, the respondent merely reproducing the allegations of the parties in their pleadings; that the decision in the second case was premature because the parties had not yet had their preliminary conference nor filed their pre-trial briefs; and that the respondent's incompetence was shown by the inconsistent disposition of the two cases. The respondent answered that the ownership case directly affected the complainants' right to file a complaint for unlawful detainer, that the principle of litis pendentia applied, and that the complainants violated Circular No. 28-91 for failing to disclose the pendency of the ownership case.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge may be held administratively liable for ignorance of the law in suspending and terminating the two ejectment cases pending the resolution of a separate action questioning ownership of the property.
• Whether or not the pendency of an action involving title over the property bars the filing or consideration of an ejectment suit, or makes the complainants guilty of forum shopping.
• Whether or not the proper penalty is a reprimand, rather than the fine recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator.

Applicable Provisions

Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Judiciary Reorganization Act, provides:

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

This provision confines the municipal court's inquiry into ownership to the sole purpose of determining possession, so the pendency of a separate ownership case cannot suspend the ejectment suit.

The Implementing Rules of that law provide:

Jurisdiction in ejectment cases. Metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts, without distinction, may try cases of forcible entry and detainer even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings and the question of possession could not be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, but the question of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

This rule reinforces that the municipal court retains authority to try the ejectment case notwithstanding the ownership question raised in the pleadings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's resolution in the two ejectment cases revealed ignorance of basic principles. It was wrong for him to rule that the complainants were guilty of forum shopping in filing their complaints for unlawful detainer despite the pendency of the ownership case, and that the outcome of the ejectment suits depended on the resolution of that case.

On the second issue, the Court held that it is settled that the pendency of an action questioning the ownership of the property does not bar the filing or consideration of an ejectment suit nor the execution of the judgment therein. The reason is that an ejectment suit involves only the issue of material possession, or possession de facto, and does not decide the question of ownership. Considering this difference in causes of action, the respondent's ruling was erroneous.

On the third issue, the Court noted that in a prior case a judge labored under the same mistaken belief and deferred action in an ejectment suit until the termination of an action for annulment of title. The Court there held that the mistake constituted a mere error in judgment, reprimanded the judge, and reminded him of his duty to keep abreast with the rules, laws, and precedents affecting his court duties and jurisdiction so as to avoid the issuance of erroneous orders and decisions. The Court held that the same penalty is proper in this case.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the pendency of an action questioning the ownership of the property does not bar the filing or consideration of an ejectment suit, nor the execution of the judgment therein, because an ejectment suit involves only the issue of material possession or possession de facto and does not decide ownership. Second, under Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, when the defendant raises ownership in an ejectment case and possession cannot be resolved without deciding it, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. Third, a judge who defers or terminates an ejectment case on the mistaken belief that a pending ownership case is a prejudicial question commits an error in judgment that warrants reprimand, and he has the duty to keep abreast with the rules, laws, and precedents affecting his court duties and jurisdiction.

Disposition

The Court reprimanded the respondent judge, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the pendency of an action questioning ownership does not bar an ejectment suit, because ejectment touches only material possession and never decides ownership. Examiners use this case to test the jurisdiction of municipal courts over ejectment despite an ownership question, the rule against forum shopping, and the administrative liability of judges for ignorance of basic law.