1. UNLAWFULL DETAINER; JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE; PRIOR POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF, A REQUISITE TO SUCH ACTION; PROPERTIES COVERED BY CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. — Where the plaintiff brings an action of unlawful detainer in the justice of the peace court, but had never had prior possession of the land, as the defendant had never parted with his possession and still continues in his possession, the case should be dismissed even if the property is covered by a certificate of title in the name of the plaintiff if there is a question as to the validity of his deed or title. (Torres v. Peña, 78 Phil., 231; Peñalosa v. Garcia, 78 Phil., 245; and Aquino v. Deala, 63 Phil., 582, 593.)

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — In the case at bar, plaintiff’s right to secure for himself the possession of the property in the action of unlawful detainer is predicated on his certificate of title, but since the validity of said title has been put in issue because of anomalies that surrounded or preceded its source, his alleged right to the possession necessarily involves the question of the validity or effectiveness of his title. His right to possess is inseperable from his title. Under the circumstances, it was the duty of the justice of the peace to have refused to take cognizance of the case, certifying it to the Court of First Instance as ordained by the peremptory provision of section 68 of Act No. 136 as amended by section 3 of Act No. 1627.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Granting, for the sake of argument, that defendant did not expressly allege that he is the owner, implication to that effect may be made from allegations in the special defenses, i.e., that he had been in continuous possession for 25 years, that he never sold the property to a third person, and that the latter secured a deed of sale by fraud. But the fundamental question to determine in the case at bar is, did the defendant raise the question of lack of jurisdiction? Since he raised this question, by motion to dismiss, from the start of the proceedings, and in the Court of First Instance on appeal again raised the same question, the case necessarily involves a question of title, one which the justice of the peace court has no jurisdiction, and, therefore, should be dismissed.

This is an appeal by way of certiorari from a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, Fifth Division, ordering petitioner herein to vacate a certain property subject of the action, and to pay for its use and occupation P30 a month from November 15, 1945, until its possession is returned to the Respondent.

The case originated in the justice of the peace court of Pasig, Rizal, as an action of unlawful detainer. Respondent herein Braulio Santos, who was plaintiff in that action, alleged that he is the vendee of the property, and that Baltazar Raymundo, petitioner herein, unlawfully withholds the possession thereof. The justice of the peace court rendered judgment for Santos and Raymundo appealed to the court of first instance. In that court, Hon. Ambrosio Santos presiding, the action was dismissed on the ground that the action necessarily involves the ownership of the property in question. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The facts and circumstances of the case as found by this court are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Antecedents. — On and before July 14, 1925, the spouses Baltazar Raymundo and Agapita San Juan were the registered owners of a parcel of land, together with the building (bakery) erected thereon, situated in the municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, more particularly described and bounded as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘A parcel of land (lot No. 1, plan Psu-39552), situated in the barrio of San Jose, municipality of Pasig. Bounded on the NE. by property of Baltazar Raymundo; on the SE. by the Plaza Rizal; on the SW. by property of Pas de Amora; and on the NW. by property of Be Chui Kin and De Lico. Beginning at a point marked ’1’ on plan, being N. 46