BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

On
December 2, 1958, respondent Zacarias Rosales instituted forcible entry
Case No. 356 of the Municipal Court of Butuan City, against herein
petitioners, Bruno and Carmen Torralba, and one Francisco Lincuna, to
oust them from a parcel of land described in the complaint therein,
situated in Tomampi, Banza, Butuan City, upon the ground that said
defendants had, on October 28, 1958, by means of force, intimidation,
strategy and stealth, entered and occupied the Northern portion of said
land, with an area of about 400 square meters, and gathered the fruits
thereof. Thereupon (on December 3, 1958), said municipal court issued,
upon the posting of a bond, a writ of preliminary injunction directing
said defendants to refrain from continuing with their alleged acts of
usurpation and to restore Rosales, during the pendency of the action,
in the possession of the area above referred to. In due course,
judgment was (on February 10, 1959) rendered for Rosales and against
the defendants, who moved for a new trial, which was denied. A second
motion for new trial, likewise, failed. Thereafter, the defendants in
said case tried to appeal, but the same was dismissed, the notice of
appeal having been filed beyond the reglementary period.

Soon
thereafter, or on July 13, 1959, said Bruno and Carmen Torralba, and
their children, Francisca T. Bolongabong, Maura T. Cultura, Rosario B.
Torralba and Eduardo Torralba, commenced in the Court of First Instance
of Agusan the present action for certiorari and prohibition, with
preliminary injunction, against Rosales, the municipal Judge of Butuan
City and a deputy sheriff for the Province and the City of Butuan, to
annul the decision rendered in said forcible entry case, as well as the
writ of execution therein issued and an auction sale scheduled to be
held in connection therewith, upon the ground that the municipal court
had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of said case, the title to
the aforementioned land having allegedly been put in issue therein.

In
its appealed decision, the Court of First Instance of Agusan overruled
this pretense of petitioners herein, and correctly. Indeed, the
complaint of Rosales was predicated upon his prior possession, of which
he was allegedly deprived by force, intimidation, strategy and stealth.
Moreover, this allegation was admitted in paragraph 5 of the answer of
the Torralbas, subject only to the qualification that “it was not only
on or about October 28, 1958, but on different occasions for many years
before the said date that” the Torralbas “as owners in fee simple of
the portion of the property in question, exercised their right of
ownership to use and enjoy the products of their own property, but always failed and in vain, as the plaintiff surreptitiously and clandestinely, * * * gathered ahead * * * the fruits * * * properly and lawfully belonging to the herein
defendants”. Thus, the main issue, in the forcible entry case was
merely whether Rosales had been forcibly deprived of his possession by
the Torralbas. Although the latter had invoked their alleged title in
and to the land in question, this was evidently done merely to bolster
up their alleged better right to continue in possession of the area
from which they had forcibly ejected Rosales.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with costs against petitioners herein. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.