MARIA BONGALA AND ELIAS GORAYEB, DEFENDANTS AND PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE BARBAZA, JR. AND MERCEDES FORTICH, PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS; BIENVENIDO A. TAN, JUDGE, RESPONDENT.

Petitioners were sued on July 17, 1947, in the Court of First Instance
presided by respondent judge, where plaintiffs alleged that petitioners were
withholding the possession of the premises known as No. 240 Apelo Cruz, Rizal
City.

On August 9, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that (a) a forcible entry and detainer case does not fall under
the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance in accordance with sections 1
and 2 of Rule 72; (b) even if it were to be cognizable by said court,
the complaint is not verified under oath and no notice was made to the
petitioners prior to the filing of the complaint; and (c) the complaint
does not allege facts to constitute a cause of action. The motion was denied on
August 23. On September 1, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied on September 6.

In the complaint sought by petitioners to be dismissed, plaintiffs Barbaza
and Fortich allege that on April 19, 1947, petitioners executed a deed of sale
selling to plaintiffs the property in question in consideration of the price of
P15,000; that defendants promised to vacate the premises within two months, but
failed to do so and continued to occupy the property; that when plaintiffs
bought the property it was with the purpose of occupying it with their family
and defendants knew that plaintiffs had to move out from their residence in
June, because the owner of the house they were occupying wanted to occupy it
immediately; that defendants had leased the upper story to third persons at P150
a month, and prayed that defendants be sentenced to pay to plaintiffs P20 a day
as damages from June 19, 1947, to the date when defendants shall have returned
and transferred the possession of the property to plaintiffs; to pay to
plaintiffs the amount of P300 which defendants have received from their lessees
from April 19 to June 19, 1947, and the payment of other amounts said lessees
may pay thereafter; to pay P200 as attorney’s fees, plus costs; and to give to
plaintiffs other remedies according to justice and equity.

From the above, it is clear that the complaint filed is one for ejectment
under the provisions of section 1, Rule 72, which reads as follows:

“Who may institute proceedings, and when.—Subject to the provisions
of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land
or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a landlord,
vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or
building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right
to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor, vendee, or other
person, may, at any time within one year after such unlawful deprivation or
withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper inferior court against
the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any
person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession,
together with damages and costs. The complaint must be
verified.”

The complaint was filed with the evident purpose of recovering the possession
of an immovable from the vendors who were withholding it from the vendees, a
remedy specifically provided in the above-quoted reglementary provision.

Plaintiffs do not ask in so many words that defendants be ordered to vacate
the premises, but it is implied in the general prayer for any other remedy in
accordance with justice and equity, considering plaintiffs’ allegations as to
the exclusive purpose in buying the property and the urgency of having to move
out from their residence in June.

The complaint has been filed within one month after the alleged breach by
defendants of their obligation to vacate the premises and turn over its
possession to plaintiffs.

Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, as amended, confers exclusive
original jurisdiction upon municipal and justice of the peace courts on
ejectment cases within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession committed by defendant.

The Court of First Instance presided by respondent judge has no jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the complaint in question, which must be originally filed
with the proper municipal or justice of the peace court.

For all the foregoing, the order of respondent judge dated August 23, 1947,
denying the dismissal of the complaint in civil case No. 257, Jose Barbaza, Jr.,
et al. vs. Maria Bongala et al., is set aside, and. said complaint is dismissed
without prejudice to plaintiffs to file said complaint with the municipal court
of Rizal City. No costs.

Feria, Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ.,
concur.