CIVPROBallesterosv.

RuralBank

BALLESTEROSv.RURALBANKOF CANAMAn FACTS: Petitioner Lucia Ballesteros filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, Deed of Mortgage and DamagesagainstherchildrenandRuralBank. Allegedly, her husband left her 2 parcels of land located in Camarines Sur. Without her knowledgeandconsent,herchildrenallegedly executedadeedofextrajudicialpartitionand waiver of the estate wherein all the heirs (includingLucia),agreedtoallotthe2parcels to one of her sons, Rico. She claims that Rico mortgaged Parcel B of the estate wherein Lucia was occupying in favor of RBCI which wasforeclosedduetofailuretosettletheloan securedbytheloan. On the other hand, RBCI claimed that Lucia in fact sold one of the two parcels to Rico, thereby the extrajudicial partition, waiver and mortgage were all executed with herknowledgeandconsentalthoughshewas not able to sign the document. Further, the foreclosure was known to Lucia through the auctioningnotarypublic [In the pendency of the case, RBCI had already been closed and placed under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit InsuranceCorporation(PDIC),thuslawyersof PDICtookoverthecaseofRBCI] PDICinitiallyfiledamotiontodismisson the ground that RTCIriga has no jurisdiction over the subject matter because pursuant to Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act, the RTCMakati should have the jurisdiction as the liquidation court to assist PDIC in undertakingtheliquidationofRBCI. TheRTCIrigagrantedthemotion. Lucia appealed the motion to the CA on thegroundthatRTCIrigaerredindismissing the case, because it had jurisdiction over the case under the rule on adherence of jurisdiction. Petitioner contends that RTC Iriga has jurisdiction because the case was filed before the RTCIriga at the time RBCI was still doing business or before it was placedunderreceivershipofPDIC. Lucia filed a motion for reconsideration onstatingthattheCAerredinnotfindingthat theRTCIrigaisvestedwithjurisdiction.

ISSUES:Whetherthecourterredin dismissingthecasebasedonthedoctrineof adherenceofjurisdiction. HELD:NO. RATIO: Petitioners argument that RTCIriga is vested with jurisdiction by virtue of adherence of jurisdiction falls out from a strained interpretation of the law and jurisprudence. Indeed the Court recognizes the doctrine on adherence of jurisdiction but suchprincipleisnotwithoutexceptions.One ofwhichiswhenthechangeinjurisdictionis curativeincharacter,suchasthecaseatbar. The requirement that all claims againstthebankbepursuedintheliquidation proceedings filed by the Central Bank is intendedtopreventthemultiplicityofactions against the insolvent bank and designed to establish due process and orderliness in the liquidationofthebank.