SEE KIONG PHA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TI BUN LAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

JOHNSON, J.:



body {
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size:80%;
background-color:#FFFFFF;
margin:0 2% 0 2%;
text-align: justify;
}
h1 {
font-family:times;
}
h2 {
background-color:#cccccc;
padding:10px 0 10px 0;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
}
h3 {
font-weight: bold;
text-transform: uppercase;
text-align: center;
}
div#footer
{
font-size:9px;
}

.style1 {color: #FF0000}This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. It was commenced in the
court of the justice of the peace of the City of Manila on the 20th day of
August, 1919. Its purpose was to recover the possession of a piece of property,
including the lot and the building thereon, known as Nos. 225-231 Calle Santo
Cristo, of the City of Manila, together with the sum of P250 as the rent for the
month of August, 1919. The justice of the peace decided that the plaintiff was
entitled to the possession of the property in question and rendered a judgment
to that effect together with a judgment for the sum of P250 for the said month
of August. From that judgment the defendant appealed to the Court of First
Instance.

In the Court of First Instance the plaintiff renewed his complaint demanding
the return of the possession of the property, together with damages at the rate
of P50 per month, commencing with the month of September, 1919, until the
property was returned to him. In said amended complaint no demand is made for
the rent for the month of August, 1919, for which rent was demanded in the
complaint presented in the court of the justice of the peace. To said complaint
in the Court of First Instance the defendant answered, denying each and all of
the allegations of the complaint, and for a special defense alleged:

“That since several years ago the; defendant has been occupying, as tenant,
the premises known as Nos. 225 to 231 on Santo Cristo street at a monthly rent
of P240, under a contract entered into with the owners thereof, who at present
are the minors Sy Kiang Chian and Florencia Sy Lioc Suy, represented by their
mother Dy Sioc Jian.

“That the defendant has not made any contract of lease with the plaintiff, or
any other contract with regard to said premises.

“That the defendant was notified by the said Dy Sioc Jian that her minor
children are still the owners of the aforesaid premises and that the rent
thereof must be paid only to her in her capacity as administratrix.

“That the defendant has always been, and is, ready to pay the rents of said
premises, as he has always done up to September 30, 1919, to the person who
really has the right to receive said rents.

“That the defendant believes that the aforesaid minors represented by Dy Sioc
Jfan are necessary parties to this action in order that it may be decided
whether they are the owners entitled to receive the rents of the premises in
question, or the plaintiff.

“Wherefore the defendant prays the court: That an order be entered directing
that said minors represented by Dy Sioc Jian be summoned and ordered to appear
in this case and a judgment be rendered, determining who has the right to
receive the rents of said premises, dismissing the com- plaint as to defendant
Ti Bun Lay, with the costs against the plaintiff, and granting the defendant any
other just and equitable remedy.”

After the beginning of the trial upon the issue presented by the complaint
and the answer, the Honorable Pedro Concepcion, judge, discovered that some
question existed in another case (No. 17819) concerning the ownership of the
property in question, and ordered the suspension of the present case until the
question of the ownership of the property in question was decided. The parties
in the action (No, 17819) involving the ownership of the property in question
were Dy Sioc Jian, See Kiong Chuan, and Florencia Sy Lioc Suy, as plaintiffs,
against Sy Lioc Suy, See Kiong Pha, See Kiong Ling, See Kiong Chuan, and See
Kiong Thi, defendants. In that action (No. 17819) the Honorable Pedro
Concepcion, judge, on the 24th day of March, 1921, after trial rendered a
decision declaring that the defendants See Kiong Pha, See Kiong Ling, See Kiong
Chuan, and See Kiong Thi were the sole and only owners of the property in
question. (Exhibit H.) The plaintiffs appealed from that decision to the Supreme
Court, where in a carefully prepared decision by Justice Ignacio Villamor, the
judgment appealed from was affirmed.^[1]
(Exhibit I.) The cause was then returned to the Court of First Instance.

It will be noted that one of the defendants in cause No. 17819, involving the
question of the ownership of the property in question, is the plaintiff herein,
See Kiong Pha.

After the final decision by the Supreme Court of cause No. 17819 and the same
was returned to the Court of First Instance, the defendant in the present case
presented a motion on the 28th day of March, 1923, praying for the dismissal of
the present case upon the ground that it appeared that the plaintiff was not the
sole owner of the property in question and had not been duly authorized by his
coowners to maintain the present action. That motion apparently was never passed
upon by the lower court. The cause proceeded to trial, at the close of which the
Honorable Pedro Concepcion, judge, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
and against the defendant for the sum of P19,066.54 as damages for the use and
occupation of the property at the rate of P250 per month for the month of
August, 1919, and for the following months commencing with September, 1919, to
the 19th day of October, 1922, at the rate of P500 per month. The court further
ordered that the sum of P9,653.23 which had been deposited with the clerk during
the pendency of the action be delivered to the plaintiff. From that judgment the
defendant appealed.

The appellant now alleges that neither the court of the justice of the peace
nor the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the subject-matter in
litigation; that the justice of the peace did not have jurisdiction because a
question of ownership was involved, and therefore the Court of First Instance
had no jurisdiction on appeal, and supports that contention by Exhibits H and I
above referred to. Said exhibits clearly show that there was a real question of
ownership concerning the property in question. He further contends that the
plaintiff was not the proper party to maintain the action, by citing his answer
filed in the present cause, which is quoted above and which is found at page 22
of the expediente. He further contends that the question was again
called to the attention of the lower court on the 28th day of March, 1923, when
he presented a motion to dismiss the present case because the plaintiff was not
the proper party to maintain the action, after the decision of the Supreme Court
in cause No. 17819 of the Court of First Instance, which motion, as far as the
record shows, was never passed upon. From an examination of the record, with
special reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in cause No 17819, the
fact is established beyond question that there was a question concerning the
ownership of the property pending, and that the plaintiff herein, See Kiong Pha,
was not the owner of the property in question, but was only a coowner with three
others, and that he had no authority to maintain the present action.

For all of the foregoing, we are of the opinion, and so decide, that the
judgment appealed from should be, and is hereby, revoked; and it is hereby
ordered and decreed that the record be returned to the court of its origin,
without prejudice to the institution of such new proceedings as the parties
interested may deem wise, and that if no proper proceedings are instituted there
within the period of five days from the notice hereof, that the money heretofore
deposited by the defendant with the clerk of the Court of First Instance be
returned to him. And without any finding as to costs, it is so
ordered.

Araullo, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Ostrand, Johns,
and Romualdez, JJ., concur.