[G.R. No. 9116. September 19, 1914. ]
ROSENDO PALAD ET AL., Petitioners, v. MARIANO CUI, as judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas, and BALDOMERO CALATRAVA, Respondents.
William A. Kincaid, Thomas L. Hartigan, and E. A. Perkins, for Petitioners.
Godofredo Reyes, for Respondents.
1. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT. — There is no appeal to the Supreme Court in an action for the summary possession of land begun under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appeals in such cases are governed by the provisions of law relative to appeals from justices’ courts.
2. APPEAL; MANDAMUS TO COMPEL ALLOWANCE. — Where no appeal lies from the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court, the latter will not compel the Court of First Instance by mandamus to allow an appeal.
3. APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY; NOTICES. — It is the general rule that where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record all notices thereafter required to be given in the action or proceeding must be given to the attorney and not the client; and a notice given to the client and not to his attorney is not a notice in law. (Rules 3 and 12, Courts of First Instance.)
4. DISMISSAL WITHOUT NOTICE; REINSTATEMENT. — Where a demurrer has been filed, a hearing had thereon and the complaint dismissed without notice to the plaintiff, the latter may apply within a reasonable time after discovering the dismissal of his action for the vacation of the dismissing order and the reinstatement of the cause, provided the discovery is not too late.
5. ID.; FINALITY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL. — Under such circumstances the order dismissing the action does not become final within the same time in which such an order would become final if made and entered on proper notice.
6. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE- JURISDICTION IN ACTION FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER, TITLE. — A justice’s court has no jurisdiction in an action for the summary possession of land under sections 80 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the title or ownership of the property the possession of which is in litigation, and any judgment of that court determining that question is without jurisdiction.
7. ID.; APPEAL; JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE. — In an appeal from a judgment of a justice’s court in summary proceedings the Court of First Instance has no wider jurisdiction or greater powers than had the justice’s court from which the appeal was taken; and a justice’s court having in such proceedings no jurisdiction to determine the title to land, the Court of First Instance lacks such power on appeal.
D E C I S I O N
In this proceeding it is prayed that a writ of mandamus issue directing the respondent Mariano Cui, as judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas, to approve a proposed bill of exceptions in civil case No. 600 of that court, and thereby allow an appeal to the Supreme Court for a review of the judgment, orders, and decrees o