G.R. No. L-7270; March 29, 1913
Gregorio Jimenez, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Pascuala Lozada, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Gregorio Jimenez and his co-defendants were sued by Pascuala Lozada for unlawful detainer before the justice of the peace of Las Piñas. The justice of the peace rendered judgment against Jimenez et al., ordering them to restore possession of the land to Lozada and to pay P345 as losses and damages. Jimenez et al. filed an appeal within the reglementary period, offering a bond with solvent sureties and depositing P16 for appeal fees. The justice of the peace refused to admit the appeal because Jimenez et al. did not pay or deposit the P345 award for losses and damages, citing Section 2 of Act No. 1778 . Jimenez et al. then filed a special motion in the Court of First Instance (CFI) to set aside the judgment of the justice of the peace, order a new trial, and issue an injunction. The CFI granted a temporary injunction and later declared both Lozada and the justice of the peace in default. Subsequently, the CFI rendered a judgment on the merits of the unlawful detainer case itself, dissolving the injunction and ordering the record returned to the justice of the peace with instructions to admit the appeal if the bond and fees were furnished, and stating that the payment requirement under Act No. 1778 did not apply to amounts awarded as losses and damages, as distinct from rentals. Jimenez et al. appealed this CFI judgment to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to render a judgment on the merits of the unlawful detainer case after the justice of the peace refused to admit the appeal, instead of being limited to ruling on the propriety of that refusal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The CFI’s jurisdiction in the special proceeding initiated by Jimenez et al. was limited solely to determining whether the justice of the peace should have admitted the appeal. The CFI could not lawfully try or decide the fundamental issues of the unlawful detainer case on appeal because the appeal from the justice of the peace court had never been properly admitted and the case was not duly elevated. For the CFI to exercise appellate jurisdiction, the appeal must be submitted in the manner prescribed by law, with a new complaint filed in the CFI. The CFI’s judgment on the merits was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, acting in its appellate jurisdiction over the CFI’s void judgment (not in third instance over the unlawful detainer case), remanded the case to the CFI with the directive to order the justice of the peace to admit the appeal in accordance with law, noting that the payment requirement under Act No. 1778 applied only to amounts due as rent or the reasonable value of use and occupation, not to awards for losses and damages.