4/12/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 096

[No. L-7076. April 28, 1955]

ERIBERTO P. ROSARIO and PAZ UNTALAN DE

ROSARIO, plaintiffs and appellants, vs. FILOMENO
CARANDANG, ET AL., defendants and appellees.

1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND

DETAINER; ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT;
EFFECT THEREOF.—A Simple allegation in the
complaint for forcible entry and detainer that the
defendant have filed an opposition in the case where
plaintiffs have applied for the registration of the parcel of
land subject of the complaint, does not amount to an
allegation that the defendants are claiming ownership
thereof, since an opposition in a registration case may be
based on claims or interest other than ownership in the
land sought to be registered. And neither does the fact
that plaintiffs pray in their complaint that they be
declared owners of the parcel in question convert their
action from one of forcible entry into one for declaration of
ownership or quieting of title; for the prayer is not a
material part of the complaint (Vda. de Lacson vs. Diaz, 47
Off. Gaz., [Supp.] 237), and it is the allegations of the
complaint, and not the prayer, that not

846

846 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rosario and Untalan vs. Carangdang, et al.

only determined the jurisdiction of the court, but confer

that jurisdiction (Fernandez contra Gala-Sison, 50 Off.
Gaz., No. 12, 5760; Infante vs. Dulay, 67 Phil., 159).

2. ID.; AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS; WHEN THEY

CAN NOT BE ALLOWED.—Although amendments to
pleadings are favored and liberally allowed in the
furtherance of justice, it is obvious that when it appears
from the very face of the complaint that the Court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, an
amendment of the complaint can not be allowed so as to
confer jurisdiction upon the Court.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c3fae0eac7fa02e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
4/12/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 096

ID.; ID.; AMENDMENT AS OF RIGHT.—Before an

3.
answer or a motion to dismiss has been filed, the original
complaint is amendable, and the amendment can
supersede the original pleading, as of right, without leave
of court being required, and without the court taking
cognizance at all of the original complaint.

4. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; EXCLUSIVE

JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF PEACE COURTS
REGARDLESS OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES; EXPENSES
OF FILING SUIT.—The justice of the peace courts have
exclusive jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer case,
regardless of the amount claimed therein as damages (Lao
Seng Hian, et al. vs. Hon. Natividad Almeda Lopez, et al.,
83 Phil., 617). The expenses for the filing of the suit, viz
costs and attorneys' fees, are excluded from the
jurisdictional amount that confer jurisdiction upon courts.

APPEAL from two orders of the Court of First Instance of

Pangasinan. Abaño, J. and Pasicolan, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Primicias, Abad, Mencias & Castillo for plaintiffs and
appellants.
Brigido G. Estrada for appellees.

REYES, J. B. L., J.:

This is an appeal from two orders of the Court of First

Instance of Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 12316, the first
dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, and the second denying
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for the admission
of an amended complaint.
On October 16, 1952, plaintiffs Eriberto P. Rosario and
Paz Untalan de Rosario filed a complaint against
defendants Filomeno Carangdang, et al., specifically
alleging
847

VOL, 96, APRIL 28, 1955 847

Rosario and Untalan vs. Carangdang, et al.

therein that plaintiffs-appellants are the owners and

possessors of a parcel of land (lot No. 2, plan Psu-123111)
in Labrador, Pangasinan; that they have applied for the
registration thereof in Registration Case No. 658, G.L.R.O.
No. 2610, wherein defendants filed an opposition; that on
or about October 3, 1952, defendants illegally entered into
the premises, destroyed the nipa plants thereon, and made
dikes to convert the place into a fishpond; that in spite of
warnings and notices from plaintiffs-appellants, defendants
continued to possess and occupy the premises; and that as
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c3fae0eac7fa02e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
4/12/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 096

a result of defendants' entry into and possession of the land

in question, plaintiffs have suffered damages in the amount
of P2,000.
On November 3, 1952, defendants moved for the
dismissal of the complaint, claiming (1) that the Court had
no jurisdiction of the case because it is one of forcible entry
and detainer exclusively cognizable by the Justice of the
Peace Court, and furthermore, because the demand for
damages does not exceed P2,000; and (2) that there is
another action pending between the same parties and for
the same cause (Land Registration Case No. 658, G.L.R.O.
No. 2610, wherein plaintiffs are the applicants and
defendants are the oppositors, and Land Registration Case
No. 602, G.L.R.O. No. 2313, wherein defendants are the
applicants and plaintiffs are the oppositors) in which the
title and ownership of the parcel in question is involved
and contested. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss,
alleging that the Court of First Instance acting as a
registration court, can not award damages resulting from
defendants' alleged illegal entry into and possession of the
land in question.
The lower Court found the motion to dismiss
meritorious, and on November 7, 1952 ordered the
dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiffs moved for the
reconsideration of the order of dismissal, and prayed as
well for the admission of an amended complaint, wherein
they make specific allegation for the first time that the
defendants
848

848 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rosario and Untalan vs. Carangdang, et al.

are claiming ownership of the land in question in the two

registration cases previously mentioned. Defendants
opposed the motion for reconsideration and the admission
of ,an amended complaint, upon the ground that the
amended complaint would convert plaintiffs' action from
one of forcible entry and detainer to one of recovery of
ownership and possession. Again, defendants' position was
sustained by the Court below; and later, it denied a motion
for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal. Hence,
this appeal by the plaintiff s to this Court.
We see no error in the lower Court's dismissal of
appellants' original complaints. It was filed on October 16,
1952, barely two weeks from and after the alleged entry
into and illegal taking of possession of the land in question
by the defendants. The case pleaded was a clear action for
forcible entry and detainer, where plaintiffs allege prior
possession of the premises in question and to have been
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c3fae0eac7fa02e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
4/12/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 096

deprived thereof within the period of one year, by other

person or persons, who excluded them therefrom and
withheld possession without right—a case falling within
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the justice of the
peace courts (Rule 72, Sec. 1, Rules of Court: Sec. 88, Rep.
Act 296).
Appellants insist that their action is not for forcible
entry and detainer but for declaration of ownership or
quieting of title, with claim for damages in the sum of
P2,500 This argument is untenable. There is no averment
in the complaint that the defendants claim or dispute the
ownership of the parcel in question. The simple allegation
therein that defendants have filed an opposition in the case
where plaintiffs have applied for the registration of said
parcel, does not amount to an allegation that the
defendants are claiming ownership thereof, since an
opposition in a registration case may be based on claims or
interest other than ownership in the land sought to be
registered. And neither does the fact that appellants pray
in their complaint that they be declared owners of
849

VOL. 96, APRIL 28, 1955 849

Rosario and Untalan vs. Carangdang, et al,

the parcel in question convert their action from one of

forcible entry into one for declaration of ownership or
quieting of title; for the prayer is not a material part of the
complaint (Vda. de Lacson vs. Diaz, 87 Phil., 150, 47 Off.
Gaz., [Supp.] 337), and it is the allegations of the
complaint, and not the prayer, that not only determine the
jurisdiction of the court, but confer that jurisdiction
(Fernandez contra Gala-Sison, supra, p. 282; Infante vs.
Dulay, 67 Phil., 259).
Plaintiffs also insist that their action falls within the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, because their
claim for damages amounts to P2,500. This argument is
untenable. In the first place, settled is the rule that justice
of the peace courts have exclusive jurisdiction over forcible
entry and detainer cases, regardless of the amount claimed
therein as damages (Lao Seng Hian, et al. vs. Honorable
Natividad Almeda Lopez, et al., 83 Phil., 617; 46 Off. Gaz.,
[11] 70). In the second place, it appears f rom the
allegations of the complaint that only the amount of P2,000
is claimed to have been suffered by appellants as damages
as a result of defendants' illegal possession and destruction
of the land in question (par. 8 of the complaint, Rec. on
App., p. 4), the additional claim of P500 being allegedly for
"additional expenses, besides the damages stated above",
meaning expenses incurred due to the filing of this case.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c3fae0eac7fa02e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
4/12/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 096

Considering that the expenses for the filing of the suit, viz,
costs and attorneys' fees, are excluded from the
jurisdictional amount that confer jurisdiction upon courts,
the additional amount of P500 claimed by appellants in
their complaint would not take their case out of the
jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court, even if such
jurisdiction were to be determined by no other factor than
the amount sought to be recovered in the complaint.
Under their second assignment of error, appellants
contend that the lower Court erred in denying their motion
for reconsideration and in ref using to admit their amended

850

850 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rosario and Untalan vs. Carangdang, et al.

complaint. Again we find this assignment of error to be

without merit. While it is true that under the liberal
provisions of our Rules of Court, amendments to pleadings
are favored and liberally allowed in the furtherance of
justice, it is obvious that when it appears from the very
face of the complaint that the Court has no jurisdiction
over the subject-matter of the case, an amendment of the
complaint can not be allowed so as to confer jurisdiction
upon the Court. In Alvarez, et al. vs. Commonwealth of the
Phil., et al., 65 Phil., 302, this Court held:

Under this section (Sec. 101 of the Code of Civ. Pro. the
amendment of a pleading, after a demurrer is sustained, is not an
absolute right of the pleader; the amendment rests rather in the
sound discretion of the court. Generally when a demurrer is
sustained, the party who presented the defective pleading is
afforded an opportunity to amend it under conditions which the
court may fix; and this should be done when it appears clearly
that the defect is remediable by amendment (Molina vs. La
Electricista, 6 Phil., 519; Serrano vs. Serrano, 9 Phil., 142;
Segovia vs. Provincial Board of Albay, 13 Phil., 331; Balderrama
vs. Compañia General de Tabacos, 13 Phil., 609; Macapinlac vs.
Gutierrez Repide, 43 Phil., 770). But when it is evident that the
court has no jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter
:that the pleading is so fatally defective as not to be susceptible of'
amendment, or that to permit such amendment would radically
alter the theory and the nature of the action, then the court may
refuse the amendment of the defective pleading and order the
dismissal of the case (49 C. J., sec. 563, p. 457; San Joaquin etc.,
Canal, etc,, Co. vs. Stanislaus County, 155 Cal., 21; Bell. vs.
California Bank, 153 Cal., 234; Ridgway vs. Pogan, 2 Cal. Unrep.
Cas., 718; Schlecht vs. Schlecht, 277 F. 1065; Beal vs. United
Properties Co., 46 Cal. A., 287; Bemartini vs. Marini, 45 Cal. A.,
418; Lentz vs. Clough, 39 Cal. A., 430; Burki vs. Pleasanton

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c3fae0eac7fa02e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
4/12/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 096

School District., 18 Cal. A., 493; Patterson vs. Steele, 93 Neb.,

209; Cox vs. Gerogia R., etc. Co., 139 Ga., 532; Peo. vs. McHatton,
7 111., 731; Higgins vs. Degney, 25 Misc., 248; 55 N. Y. S., 59;
Wood vs. Anderson, 25 Pa., 407). Section 101 authorizing the
amendment of a defective pleading should be liberally construed
and the courts, whenever possible, should incline in favor of the
amendment; but when it appears patent that the pleading is not
susceptible of amendment upon the grounds above set out, the
appellate courts should not hold that the former have abused
their

851

VOL. 96, APRIL 29, 1955 851

Navarra vs. People and Court of Appeals

discretion in not permitting the amendment and in dismissing the

case."

Appellants' original complaint, as we have already

determined, is one for forcible entry and detainer, over
which the Court below has no jurisdiction. Not having
acquired jurisdiction over the case by the filing of the
original complaint, the lower court has neither the power
nor the jurisdiction to act on the motion for the admission
of the amended complaint, much less to allow such
amendment, since it is elementary that the court must first
acquire jurisdiction over the case in order to act validly
therein. Wherefore, the Court below did not err in ref using
to admit plaintiffs-appellants' amended complaint.
The case might be different had the amendment been
made before an answer or a motion to dismiss had been
filed, since the original complaint was then amendable, and
the amendment could supersede the original pleading, as of
right, without leave of court being required, and without
the Court taking cognizance at all of the original complaint.
In view of the foregoing, the orders appealed from are
affirmed, without prejudice to appellants' filing another
case for reivindicación. Costs against appellants.

Pablo, Acting C, J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,

Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ.,
concur.

Orders affirmed.

__________________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c3fae0eac7fa02e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
4/12/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 096

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c3fae0eac7fa02e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7