G.R. No. 6000 : MGR. J.J. CARROLL, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, and JUAN BALLESTEROS, plaintiffs, vs. THE HON. ISIDRO PAREDES, defendant.
September 26, 1910

FACTS:
A criminal complaint was filed against Juan Ballesteros, a parochial priest, for closing a public street in Tayug, Pangasinan, by placing gates where the road enters and leaves the church’s atrio. The Justice of the Peace (JP) found him guilty, sentencing him to imprisonment, a fine, and ordering him to remove the gates. Ballesteros appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), which again found him guilty, imposed a fine, and reiterated the order to remove the gates.

Mgr. J.J. Carroll (Bishop) and Juan Ballesteros then filed a petition for certiorari and injunction with the Supreme Court against the CFI judge. They argued that: (1) the JP exceeded its jurisdiction because the case necessarily involved the question of title to real property (the Church claimed ownership of the land where the gates were placed, citing a previous Supreme Court decision and existing walls, despite admitting prior public passage); (2) consequently, the CFI on appeal also lacked jurisdiction; and (3) even if the CFI had jurisdiction, it exceeded its authority by ordering the removal of the gates as part of the penalty, as such an order is not authorized by statute.

ISSUE:
1. Did the Justice of the Peace (and subsequently the Court of First Instance on appeal) have jurisdiction to try a criminal case where the title to real property was necessarily involved?
2. Did the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction to impose, as a part of the penalty in a criminal action, a sentence condemning the defendant to abate a nuisance (i.e., remove the gates)?

RULING:
1. No, on the JP’s jurisdiction. A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction to try and determine any case, whether criminal or civil, where the title to real property is necessarily involved. When such a case comes before a JP, it should immediately be certified to the Court of First Instance. (The Supreme Court clarified that if a case originates without jurisdiction in the JP, but the defendant, on appeal to the CFI, does not timely object to jurisdiction and the CFI has subject matter jurisdiction, the objection may be waived, allowing the CFI to proceed on the merits. However, if timely objection is made, the appellate court only acquires jurisdiction to dismiss the case.)
2. No, on the abatement order. Under existing Philippine law, specifically Articles 1 and 21 of the Penal Code, crimes or misdemeanors are punished only by penalties established by law prior to their commission. Neither English nor American common law, which allows for abatement of public nuisances, is in force in the Philippines if it conflicts with existing law. As there is no statutory provision authorizing courts to impose, as a part of the penalty in a criminal action for obstructing a highway, a sentence condemning the defendant to abate the nuisance (e.g., remove the gates), that part of the judgment is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts and is therefore null and void.

The Supreme Court declared that part of the CFI’s sentence condemning Ballesteros to remove the gates null and void, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.