ZULUETA VS.

MARIANO111 SCRA 206

FACTS: Petitioner Zulueta was the owner of a house and lot in Antonio Subdivision, Pasig Rizal, while private respondent is a movie dire tor! The" entered into a #Contra t to Sell$ the said propert" of petitioner for P%&,''' pa"able in (' "ears with respondent bu"er assuming to pa" a down pa"ment of P&,''' and a monthl" installment of P)*' pa"able in advan e before the &th da" of the orresponding month, starting with +e ember, ,-).! /ne of their stipulations was that upon failure of the bu"er to fulfill an" of the onditions being stipulated, the bu"er automati all" and irrevo abl" authorizes owner to re over e0tra12udi iall", ph"si al possession of the land, building and other improvements, whi h were the sub2e t of the said ontra t, and to ta3e possession also e0tra12udi iall" whatever personal properties ma" be found within the aforesaid premises from the date of said failure to answer for whatever unfulfilled monetar" obligations bu"er ma" have with owner! +emand was also waived! /n the allegation that private respondent failed to ompl" with the monthl" amortizations stipulated in the ontra t, despite demands to pa" and to va ate the premises, and that thereb" the ontra t was onverted into one of lease, petitioner ommen ed an 42e tment suit against respondent before the 5uni ipal Court of Pasig, pra"ing that 2udgment be rendered ordering respondent to ,6 va ate the premises7 (6 pa" petitioner the sum of P,,, %&,!*' representing respondent8s balan e owing as of 5a", ,-))7 *6 pa" petitioner the sum of P)*' ever" month after 5a", ,-)), and osts! Private respondent ontended that the 5uni ipal Court had no 2urisdi tion over the nature of the a tion as it involved the interpretation and9or res ission of the ontra t!

:SS;4: <as the a tion before the 5uni ipal Court essentiall" one for res ission or annulment of a ontra t=

R;>:?@: Aes! A ording to the Supreme Court, #!!!proof of violation is a ondition pre edent to resolution or res ission! :t is onl" when the violation has been established that the ontra t an be de lared resolved or res inded! ;pon su h res ission in turn, hinges a pronoun ement that possession of the realt" has be ome unlawful!$ The Supreme Court, in ?era vs! Ba ante C* SCRA &'&6, also said, #A violation b" a part" of an" of the stipulations of a ontra t on agreement to sell real propert" would entitle the other part" to resolved or res ind it!$ Also, a ording to the boo3 of Tolentino, Civil Code of the Phil!, Bol! :B, ,-)( ed! P! ,)D, iting 5agdalena 4state vs! 5"ri 3, %, Phil! *.. C,-.,6, e0tra12udi ial res ission has legal effe t when the parties does not oppose it! :f it is ob2e ted to, 2udi ial determination of the issue is still ne essar"! <ith regards to the 2urisdi tions of inferior ourts, the Supreme Court said that the CF: orre tl" ruled that the 5uni ipal Court had no 2urisdi tion over the ase and orre tl" dismissed the appeal! Eowever, the CF: erred in assuming original 2urisdi tion, in the fa e of the ob2e tion interposed b" petitioner! Se tion ,,, Rule .', leaves no room for doubt on this point!

Section 11 of Rule 40: Section 11. Lack of jurisdiction. A case tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal by the ourt of !irst "nstance. #ut instead of dismissin$ the case% the ourt of !irst "nstance may try the case on the merits% if the parties therein file their pleadin$s and $o to trial without any objection to such jurisdiction.&