This is a petition  for certiorari and prohibition.

Petitioner alleges that  on 21 September 1955, respondent Rehabilitation Finance Corporation  filed  in  the Municipal Court of Manila a complaint for detainer to recover from her a  parcel of land  together with the house erected thereon located at  No. 209 Padilla  street, San Miguel, Manila (civil No. 39651, Annex P); that on 16 November 1955 she filed an answer (Annex P-1) and on 5 January 1956 a supplemental answer to the complaint (Annex P-2); that at the  trial,  the  respondent  corporation introduced documentary evidence  (Exhibits A, A-1, A-2, B and C) upon which she raised the issue of ownership or title to the parcel of land and house erected thereon involved in the case; that on 7 February 1956, with leave of court, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the  case for lack of jurisdiction  (Annex P-3);  that on  10 February 1956 the Municipal  Court denied her  motion (Annex  P-4); that counsel for the petitioner filed a motion for the continuance of  the hearing of the case because of previous professional engagement, which was denied; that on 6 March 1956, upon the evidence  presented, the Municipal Court rendered judgment ordering the defendant, petitioner herein, to vacate the parcel of land and the house erected thereon,  to  pay the respondent corporation the sum of P2,7O0 as rentals  in  arrears as  of 10 May  1955,  with interest from the filing of the complaint, and the sum of P140 monthly beginning 11 May 1955 until the premises is vacated,  and to pay the costs  (Annex P-5);  that  the petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila and reproduced her answer filed in the Municipal  Court (case No. 29483, Annex P-6); that on  6  July  1956 the respondent corporation moved for  execution of the judgment rendered by the Municipal Court pending appeal for failure of the  petitioner to file  a supersedeas bond  of P4,100 and to pay the monthly rental of P140 (Annex P-7); that on  16  July 1956 the petitioner filed an opposition to the respondent corporation's motion  (Annex P-8); that on  18 October 1956 the respondent court granted the respondent corporation's motion (Annexes P-9  ad P-9A); and that on 19 November 1956  a writ of execution was issued  directing the respondent sheriff of Manila to oust the petitioner from the premises in question  (Annex P-10).

Claiming that as the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the  case, the judgment rendered therein (Annex P-5), the orders of the respondent court of 18 October and 10 November 1956 granting respondent corporation's motion for execution pending appeal (Annexes L-9 and P-9A) and the writ of execution issued to enforce the said judgment and orders  (Annex P-10) are null and void, and for that reason the petitioner prays that  upon the filing of the required bond,  a  writ of preliminary injunction  be issued enjoining  the respondent sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution issued by the respondent court; that after hearing the said writ  be declared final and the judgment of the Municipal Court null and void; that the respondent corporation be ordered to pay the costs; and that she be granted other just and equitable relief.

On 3 January 1957 this Court granted the petitioner's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond in  the sum of P1,000.  On 12 January  1957 the petitioner  filed in this Court an ex-parte urgent petition dated 10 January 1957 praying that as she had already been ousted from the premises, the writ  of preliminary injunction  therefore issued be amended to make it one of preliminary mandatory injunction.  On 1 February 1957 the respondent  corporation  filed  an opposition thereto. On 15  February 1957, this Court granted  the petition for a  writ of  preliminary  mandatory  injunction  upon the filing by her of a bond  in the sum of P5,000.

The petitioner was the owner of the parcel of land and the house erected thereon involved in the case.  On  16 May 1949 she mortgaged the property to  the respondent corporation to secure the payment of a real estate loan in the sum of P9,000.  Because of her failure to  comply with the terms and conditions of the mortgage, as agreed upon, the respondent corporation foreclosed the mortgage under  the provisions of  Act No. 3135, as amended.   At the public auction sale conducted by  the  Sheriff of the City of Manila on 10 September 1951, the property was sold to the respondent corporation being: the highest bidder, subject to  the petitioner's  right to redeem it within one  year from date of  sale  (Annexes A and  B).  The petitioner continued to occupy and use the house and parcel of land.  Because she failed to redeem it within the period of redemption, on 15 April 1953 the respondent corporation consolidated ownership thereof (Annex C).  On 29 August 1952 the petitioner offered to repurchase the property for the  sum  of P10,569.23,  payable  20 per cent  down,  the balance in ten years on a monthly amortization plan with interest at 6 per cent per annum, subject to  the following conditions:

a. That I  shall complete the down payment  of 20 per cent within two (2) months from the date I receive notice of acceptance by the  Corporation, and upon my failure to do so, the RFC may consider the sale to me of the said property automatically cancelled and  forfeit any deposit of  P700 which  shall be  applied as rent and/or  damages without resorting to judicial action;

b. That in addition to  the monthly amortizations,  I  shall  pay the amount due for realty taxes and insurance premiums, and failure on my part to pay the same within  six  (6)  months from the due date, the RFC may advance  the said amount and I shall reimburse the same with interest at 6 per cent; and

c. That I conform with the conditions appearing in the attached appendix "A".

and  deposited  with the  respondent corporation the  sum of P700 to  back  up her  offer  (Exhibits  A and A-1). Notwithstanding the lapse of the period of  redemption,  on 15 September 1952 the respondent  corporation accepted the petitioner's proposal to repurchase the property for the sum she had offered less  P436.32, representing 50 per cent of the  penal clause, thereby reducing the repurchase price to P10,132.91, and requested her  to remit  the balance  of 20 per cent of  the repurchase  price agreed upon or the sum of P1,326.58  (Exhibit A-2).  As the petitioner failed to make the remittance  to complete payment of the  20 per cent of the  repurchase price within two  months from receipt of the notice of acceptance, on 19  February 1953 the respondent corporation cancelled the resale of the property to the petitioner.   She requested the respondent corporation several extensions  of time to complete payment of the  20 per cent of the repurchase price  agreed upon and the  respondent  corporation received  from  her the sums of P500 on 17 March 1954 and P300 on 10 November 1954, thereby raising  her total  payments made to  only P1,500, leaving a balance of P526.58 still due and unpaid. On 18  January 1955 the respondent  corporation notified the petitioner that for failure to  complete payment  of the 20 per  cent of the repurchase price agreed upon, demand was made upon her  to pay the sum  of P2,420 as rentals due and unpaid and to vacate the premises (Annex D), the contract of resale having been  cancelled and the  payments  therefore made considered as  rentals at the  rate of  P140 monthly.

Paragraph 7  of the conditions to be incorporated in the contract of resale (Appendix A,  Exhibit A-1) signed by the petitioner and attached to her offer  to repurchase the property, partly states:

7. That  pending full  payment of the purchase price, advances and interest, the  title to the real estate property and all  the improvements  thereon shall remain in the name of this Corporation until after  said  purchase  price, advances  and  interest shall have been fully  paid. * * *.

It is, therefore, clear that the ownership of the property in question has never been transfered to the petitioner and has remained  in  the  respondent  corporation. By  continuing to stay in the  premises  in question after  it was sold to the respondent corporation and the  latter acquired absolute ownership thereof, the petitioner merely acquired the status of a lessee.,  In her offer  to repurchase the property  (Exhibit A, the  petitioner  stated  that upon  failure to complete payment of the 20 per cent of the  repurchase price agreed  upon, the respondent corporation may  consider  the  sale  automatically  cancelled  and  forfeit her deposit of P700  which shall be applied as rent and/or damages without resorting to judicial  action.  In view thereof the  petitioner  could  not  defeat the respondent corporation's  title to the property,  now that  it  is  the absolute owner thereof and the contract to resell considered automatically cancelled.   In actions of forcible entry and detainer, it is a well-established rule that mere filing of an answer, claiming title to the premises involved or raising the question of ownership, will not divest a  justice of the peace court of its jurisdiction.^[1]

Moreover,  her letter dated 1& December 1956 addressed to the respondent  corporation, written on the very day this petition was  filed  in this Court and worded as follows:

In connection with the ejectment case against me, I have  the honor to request for the postponement  of its enforcement today and therefore request up to December 30, 1956 in order to enable me to look for a place to live in.  I hereby promise to surrender the peaceful  possession of the property  on  that date  to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation thru any of its representative. (Annex R-2) renders the petitioners unworthy of the  relief prayed  for in this proceedings.

The petition for a  writ of certiorari and prohibition is denied  and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction heretofore  issued dissolved,  with  costs  against   the petitioner.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and  Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Supia vs. Quintero, 59 Phil.,  312, 321;  De los Reyes vs.  Elepaño, G. R. No. L-3466, 13 October 1950; Lo  Soo vs. Osorio, 89 Phil., 135;  Andres  vs. Soriano, 54 Off. Gaz., 2506.