Case Name: Roger, Petitioner, v. López Acosta, District Judge, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1920-06-03
Citations: 28 P.R. 523
Docket Number: No. 290
Parties: Roger, Petitioner, v. López Acosta, District Judge, Respondent.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
Roger, Petitioner, v. López Acosta, District Judge, Respondent.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Judge of the District Court of Gfuayama in an Action of Unlawful Detainer.
No. 290.
Decided June 3, 1920.
UNi/AWOL Detainer — Lease—Jurisdiction-.—A lessee who continues in possession of the leased property after the contract has expired cannot allege that-his possession was precarious, and if the annual rent is one thousand dollars or less a municipal court has jurisdiction. Otherwise municipal courts would he deprived of their jurisdiction at the will of a lessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. G. Domínguez Rubio and F. Navarro for the petitioner.
Messrs. M. M. Morales and-A. Sánchez for the defendant and intervenor.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Wolf
delivered'the opinion of the court.
On the original examination of the petition of certiorari in this case we were under the impression that with the exception of the matters set forth in paragraph four all the other averments were matters neither of procedure nor of jurisdiction and the receipt of the record of the court below has not caused us to change our opinion in this regard.
The doubt we entertained was whether this unlawful de-tainer suit was of a precarious nature or not. If it was, then the complainant had no right to begin' his action in "a municipal court. Prom the complaint filed in the municipal court, which is the only matter we have a right to consider, it appears that the complainants recognized and ratified a lease made by another in their name for six months, at a monthly rental of $38, but refused to agree to the extension. Now while there might have been a question of whether an extension was granted or not, or whether there was not a tacit renewal (tácita reconducción), the fact is set forth in the complaint that the complainants were trying to put an end to a lease, the defendants being notified to quit. Tlio defendant was claiming as a lessee under a fixed amount of rental and the second cause of action set up a failure to pay rent. Where a tenant holds over, such possession is not generally of a precarious nature. Otherwise every attempt to recover at the expiration of a lease would at the election of the tenant become precarious and defeat the jurisdiction of a municipal court.
The writ must be annulled.
Writ discharged.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.