SUSANO AMOR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

In civil case No. 70519 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Branch II, which involved an appeal from a judgment rendered by the
municipal court of the same city, Susano Amor was plaintiff and
appellee, and Francisco Gonzalez defendant and appellant. The
controversy concerned the premises known as No. 2248, Rizal Avenue
(second floor). Having failed to file his answer within the prescribed
time, said defendant was declared in default by the Court of First
instance; but the order of default was lifted on the day of the hearing
with the plaintiff’s conformity.

The evidence fully establishes the following facts, as to the plaintiff’s first cause of action:

That around the month of March, 1944, the plaintiff, owner of the
premises in controversy, secured a judgment against one Rosario Lozano
ejecting the latter from the said premises; that the plaintiff was
unable to take possession of the said premises because the defendant,
without his knowledge and consent, entered the premises and since then
had been occupying the same; that despite the plaintiff’s repeated
demands for the surrender of the possession of the aforesaid premises he
had been unsuccessful in his efforts prior to the institution of his
action in the Municipal Court; and that the defendant has failed to pay
the reasonable “rents” (they should more properly be called the
reasonable monthly value of the use and occupation of the premises due
to the absence of a contract of lease between the parties) of P40 a
month since the 16th of March, 1944.

With regard to the
plaintiff’s second cause of action, he has sufficiently proven: that the
defendant had before the filing of the original suit been occupying the
premises known as the second floor of No. 2250, Rizal Avenue, of which
the plaintiff is the owner; that because he lost the house which he was
using for residence, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the
premises here in question, but the defendant refused to do so; and that
when the judgment appealed from was rendered on August 2, 1945 the
defendant was in arrears in the payment of rents (P40 a month) since
July 16, 1943.

As stated by the court of first instance, the
defendant’s defense consists in that the plaintiff is a person of means;
that he has various houses in the City of Manila and that, therefore,
he is not in need of the premises in question, his needs being very much
less than those of the defendant. As to this defense the court well
said that while it sympathized with the defendant and would wish to help
him, “in the adjudication of the case, its course can only be
determined by the evidence on record, and the evidence favors the
plaintiff.” Said court, therefore, rendered judgment, ordering the
defendant to vacate the premises known as the second floor of houses
Nos. 2248 and 2250, Rizal Avenue, and to deliver the possession thereof
to the plaintiff; to pay the “rents” at the rate of P40 a month
beginning March 11, 1945, for the second floor of house No. 2248, and at
the same rate for the second floor of house No. 2250, the “rents” to be
paid until the defendant vacates the premises.

Counsel for appellant Francisco Gonzalez has filed a single brief in the instant case and in cases G.R. Nos. L-90 and L-223,^[1]
and in the first assignment of error in said brief he assails the
original jurisdiction of the municipal court and the appellate
jurisdiction of the court of first instance over this case as well as in
the other two, basing his objection upon the allegation that the cause
of action accrued more than one year prior to the commencement of the
original suit. This contention is untenable. The point was not raised
either in the municipal court or in the court of first instance. On the
contrary, both parties filed their respective pleadings and proceeded
with the trial of the instant case on the merits in the court of first
instance without any objection to said court’s jurisdiction, the
contention having been advanced for the first time on this appeal. The
causes of action in this case, as established by the evidence, accrued
much less than one year before the suit was brought in the municipal
court.

Anyway, however, even in case of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter on the part of an inferior court (such as the municipal
court of Manila), under such circumstances as obtain in this case, Rule
40, section 11, provides:

“Lack of jurisdiction.—A case tried by an inferior court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal by
the court of first instance. But instead of dismissing the case, the
court of first instance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
may try the case on the merits if the parties therein file their
pleadings and go to the trial without any objection to such
jurisdiction.” (Italics supplied)

Finding the judgment appealed from in accordance with the facts
and the law, we affirm the same with the costs in the three instances
against the defendant.

SO ORDERED.

Ozaeta, De Joya, Perfecto, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Pp. 481, ante, and 487, post.