IRENE CALAMPIANO; PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. EULALIO TOLENTINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas
dismissing the action with costs.

The plaintiff began an action in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas for
ejectment and for damages for illegal detention. The action being at issue that
court, in view of the large number of cases then pending for trial in that court
and that sessions of the court would not be held in that province for several
months, assigned the justice of the peace of the capital of the province to take
cognizance of and try the cause in conformity with section 3 of Act No. 2041. On
the coming on of the cause for trial the plaintiff objected to the jurisdiction
of the justice of the peace, alleging that the Act authorizing the appointment
was unconstitutional and void, that the Court of First Instance exceeded its
authority in making the assignment, and that the justice of the peace had no
jurisdiction or power to hear the cause.

The justice of the peace overruled the objections of the plaintiff and
ordered the trial to proceed. The plaintiff, standing upon her objection,
refused to go forward with the trial, whereupon, on motion of the defendant, an
order was entered finally dismissing the action. This appeal is from that
order.

That portion of Act No. 2041 referred to above reads as follows: “That
justices of the peace in provincial capitals, except in the city of Manila, may
by assignment of the respective judge of the Court of First Instance in each
case have like jurisdiction within the province as the Court of First Instance
to hear and determine cases originally cognizable by the Court of First Instance
in which the subject of litigation is capable of pecuniary estimation and the
value of the subject-matter or amount of the demand does not exceed two thousand
pesos exclusive of interest and costs, except cases involving the legality of
any tax, impost, or assessment, or actions involving admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction.”

The appellant contends that a justice of the peace not having: jurisdiction
to determine the title to real estate, has no power or authority to try the case
at bar, one of the main questions being the ownership of the real estate which
is the subject of the litigation.

We are of the opinion that the appellant is in error. When authority is
delegated to the justice of the peace in the manner and under the circumstances
specified in the Act, he acts, in the trial of the particular cause to which he
is assigned, as a Court of First Instance and not as a justice of the peace or a
justice’s court. The statute expressly authorizes the Court of First Instance,
under certain circumstances, to assign a justice of the peace of the provincial
capital to the trial of certain causes pending in the Court of First Instance;
and such assignment confers upon him all of the power and authority necessary to
determine the case. This being so, there is no foundation to the objection that
this case falls within that of Barrameda vs. Moir (25 Phil. Rep., 44),
where it was held that Acts Nos. 2041 and 2131, “in so far as they attempt to
confer exclusive jurisdiction or exclusive original jurisdiction upon courts of
justices of the peace to try real-estate actions’ where the amount involved does
not exceed P200, are void because they conflict with section 9 of the Philippine
Bill, which on firms the original jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance in
‘all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property, or
of any interest therein,’ as provided in Act, No.186, section 56, paragraph 2 of
the Philippine Commission.” This decision is founded upon the proposition that
no act of the Philippine Legislature can take from Courts of First Instance the
jurisdiction which they had at the time the Act of July 1, 1902, was passed by
the Congress of the United States; and Acts Nos. 2041 and 2131, in so far as
they attempt to take from the Court of First Instance the jurisdiction which it
had at that time, are void and of no effect.

The question presented in the case before us is quite different. The
conferring upon the justice of the peace of the power specified in the Act does
not deprive the Court of First Instance of any of its jurisdiction. Act No.
2041, in effect, authorizes the temporary appointment of the justice of the
peace as judge of the Court of First Instance, to remain such until the case to
which he has been duly assigned has been finally determined. By that Act the
number of judges in the Court of First Instance in a given province is
temporarily increased from one to two. The justice of the peace acts as a judge
of the Court of First Instance and his acts have the same force and effect as
the acts of the regular judge. Holding a Court of First Instance does not
deprive that court of any of its powers. He exercises them for it.

The judgment finally dismissing the action is affirmed, with costs against
the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Trent, and Araullo,
JJ., concur.