Mabalot Vs Madela

WARLITO MABALOT and ARACELI MABALOT, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE TOMAS P.
MADELA, JR., in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and PEDRO V.
MALIT, respondents.
G.R. No. 56700 March 28, 1983
FACTS:
Pedro Malit, private respondent, is the owner of the apartment located at San Andres, Manila
which is leased to Atty. Armando Galvez since 1967. Staying with him in said apartment is petitioner
Araceli Mabalot claiming to be a ward of Atty. Armando Galvez since she was 10 years old. In 1970
Araceli Mabalot married co-petitioner Warlito Mabalot and continued to stay with Atty. Armando
Galvez until his death on August 23, 1977. After the death of Atty. Armando Galvez, the monthly
rentals for July to September were paid by Atty. Fernando Galvez, brother of Atty. Armando Galvez
On September 1, 1977, respondent wrote a letter to Atty. Fernando Galvez stating that with the
death of his brother, Araceli Mabalot and husband cannot take over the apartment as the contract of
lease between him and Atty. Armando Galvez is a personal one and could not be transmitted to them.
On September 5, 1977, the respondent wrote the petitioner that they could not take over the
apartment as it could not be the subject of inheritance and gave them three (3) months to vacate the
same. However, petitioners refused to receive said letter, and the respondent with the help of
patrolman Tomas Soriaga served it the following morning with the policeman as a witness.
On January 8, 1978, Malit filed an unlawful detainer case in the City of Manila to eject the
Mabalots from said apartment. The City Court rendered a decision in favor of the Mabalots. Malit then
filed an appeal with the Court of First Instance of Manila presided by respondent Judge Madela,
which reversed the decision of the City Court and ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises in
question.
As may be noted from the definition of the issue by Judge Madela, the question which was
raised and argued by the parties in the lower courts was the right of the petitioners to succeed to the
lease over the subject apartment previously existing between Armando Galvez and the private
respondent. Apparently convinced of the correctness of the holding of Judge Madela that they may
not continue said lease inasmuch as the petitioners are not heirs of Armando Galvez (Art. 1311, Civil
Code), nor was such lease assigned by Armando Galvez to the petitioners with the consent of private
respondent (Art. 1649, Civil Code), the petitioners now rely on the alleged legal infirmity of the
proceedings had in the lower courts by attacking their jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.
The petitioners took a direct appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
on the legal question raised by them with respect to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of
Manila and the Court of First Instance of Manila to take cognizance of the basic action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the City Court of Manila has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD:
Yes, the City Court of Manila has jurisdiction over the case.
The contention of the petitioners that the City Court of Manila has no jurisdiction over the
action filed by the private respondent inasmuch that it is not an action for unlawful detainer, but one in
which the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation just because it involves the legal
question as to the right of the petitioners to continue the lease by reason of inheritance is not
meritorious. Such legal issue is purely incidental to the question of whether they are entitled to
possess the apartment in question.
The action is for the recovery of the possession of real property brought within one year from
the time the possession of the defendant became unlawful, technically known as an action for
unlawful detainer. Although it is a real action which should ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of the
court of first instance (now the regional trial court), the law vests the exclusive original jurisdiction
over it in the courts at the municipal or city level as an exception to the general rule on jurisdiction
over real actions, presumably in view of the summary nature of the proceedings contemplated to be
taken therein. This kind of action is different and distinct from the class of actions where the subject of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. An action does not become one where the subject
is incapable of pecuniary estimation by the mere fact that an issue of law is raised therein. Such a
view would result in converting virtually all civil actions into that category, and in depriving the
municipal and city trial courts of jurisdiction over all civil cases where a party raises a question of law.

Mabalot Vs Madela

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mabalot Vs Madela

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mabalot Vs Madela

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WARLITO MABALOT and ARACELI MABALOT, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE TOMAS P.

You might also like