Lee vs.
Presiding Judge
FACTS:
On September 2, 1981, herein private respondents Spouses Roy Po Lam and Josefa
Po Lam filed a complaint for ejectment and/or unlawful detainer against herein petitioner
Jose Lee with the then City Court of Legazpi, Branch III, on the ground that the oral contract
of lease entered into between the private respondents and said petitioner, over a
commercial lot and building owned by the private respondents, had already expired and the
said petitioner refused to vacate said property despite demands from private respondents.
In his answer, herein petitioner Jose Lee, specifically denied the allegation of private
respondents of ownership over the property, on the basis of a final decision rendered by the
then Court of Appeals on March 11, 1981 in CA-G.R. No. 44770, wherein a certain Felix Lim
intervenor therein, was declared as owner of a portion of the property in question as well as
entitled to exercise the right of redemption over the remaining portion of said property
from the subsequent buyer thereof who is the predecessor-in-interest of the private
respondents.
Felix Lim, filed an answer in intervention in Civil Case No. 2687, which was admitted
by the respondent trial court, wherein he, as the declared owner of a portion of the
property in question and redemptioner of the rest thereof by virtue of the decision of the
then Court of Appeals, questioned the right of the private respondents to receive rentals
thereon.
It appears that previous to the filing of the answer in intervention, petitioner Felix
Lim filed a complaint with the then Court of First Instance of Albay against private
respondents spouses Roy Po Lam and Josefa Po Lam, where he questioned the right of
ownership and possession by the private respondents of the property.
It appears further that petitioner Felix Lim filed another complaint with the Court of First
Instance of Albay against the private respondents for the reconveyance and annulment of
the sale and title involving the same property.
Lim reiterated his motion for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that
jurisdiction over the issue of ownership of the land in question pertains to the Court of First
Instance of Albay, resolution of which was reserved while the case proceeded to trial.
On December 19, 1983, the respondent trial judge rendered his decision where he
ruled that the Municipal Trial Court of Legazpi City has jurisdiction over the issue of
ownership of the property in question. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (1) declaring the plaintiffs as lawful owners of,
and rightfully entitled to the immediate possession of the leased commercial building and
lot 1557, covered by TCT No. 8102 (formerly TCT 2580), as described in paragraph 2 of the
complaint; (2) directing the defendant his agent, or anyone acting in his behalf, to vacate
said leased building and lot, and to restore the actual possession thereof, to the plaintiffs;
(3) ordering the defendant to pay directly the plaintiffs the whole rentals which accrued,
from October, 1982 up to the time he shall have vacated the leased premises, at the rate of
P2,500.00 a month, minus the amounts already deposited with the City Treasurer's Office of
Legazpi, which amounts are hereby retained to be withdrawn by the plaintiffs, their counsel
or representative; (4) directing the defendant to also pay the plaintiffs the amounts of (a)
P2,500.00, and Pl,200.00, as exemplary damages and attorney's fees, respectively; and (b)
the costs of the suit.
The intervenor's claim and prayer are denied for lack of merit.
Thereafter, petitioner Jose Lee filed a notice of appeal of the aforesaid decision to
the Intermediate Appellate Court.
On July 9, 1984, the Intermediate Appellate Court promulgated a resolution in the case,
copy of which was received by petitioner on July 12, 1984, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, this Court RESOLVED to dismiss the present appeal, which should have been
brought to the Regional Trial Court (Sec. BP 129).
Hence, this petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed on October 4, 1984.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the respondent trial judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Legazpi City,
Branch 1, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; or with grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated its decision dated December 19,
1983 declaring private respondents as lawful owners of the property subject of Civil Case
No. 2687.
II. Whether or not the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
promulgated its resolutions dated July 9, 1984 and September 5, 1984 dismissing the appeal
sought by herein petitioners.
HELD:
I.
Petitioners contend that the respondent trial court has no jurisdiction over the
complaint for ejectment in Civil Case because the issue of ownership was raised in the
pleadings, hence, when the court resolved the issue of ownership over the property in
question, it acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
The contention is without merit.
When the complaint for ejectment was filed before the respondent trial court on
September 2, 1981, said court, as City Court of Legazpi City, had concurrent jurisdiction with
the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in ejectment cases where the
question of ownership is involved. 'This is expressly provided for in Section 3 of Republic Act
No. 5967 which took effect on June 21, 1969, and which reads:
SEC. 3. Besides the civil cases over which the City Courts have jurisdiction under Section
eighty-eight of Republic Act Numbered Two hundred ninety-six, as amended, it shall
likewise have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over the following:
