Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASE 1: SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. of, real property, or any interest therein, where the
BAUTISTA V. LINDO, MARCH 10, 2014, G.R. No. 208232 assessed value of the property involved exceeds 20,000
FACTS: Alfredo Bautista, petitioner’s predecessor, inherited in or for civil actions in Metro Manila where the value
1983 a free patent land located in Davao covered by OTC. A exceeds 50,000 except actions for forcible entry into
few years later, he subdivided the property and sold it to and unlawful detainer.
several vendees, including the respondent Lindo via deed of
absolute sale. Two months later the OCT was canceled and the Settled Jurisprudence considers some civil actions as incapable
TCT’s was issued in favor of the vendees. On 1994, Bautista of pecuniary estimation:
filed a complaint for repurchase against respondent before the 1 Action for specific performance.
RTC. During the pendency of the action Bautista died and 2 Actions for support which require the determination of
substituted by the petitioner, Efipania. Lindo entered into a the civil status
compromise agreement with the petitioners, whereby they 3 The right to support of the plaintiff
agree to cede to Efipania 3,230 sq.m. portion of the property as 4 Those for the annulment of decision of the lower courts
well as to waive, abandon, surrender, and withdraw all claims 5 Those for rescission or performance of contracts
and counterclaims against each other. RTC approved the 6 Interpretation of a contractual stipulation.
compromise agreement.
In determining if the subject matter is not capable of pecuniary
Other respondents filed a motion to dismiss alleging the lack of estimation, the nature of the principal action must be sought. If
jurisdiction of the RTC on the ground that the complaint was it is primarily for recovery of summed of money, the claim is
failed to state the value of the property sought to be recovered considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
and alleges that the total value of the properties is only P jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in RTC would depend
16,500. RTC dismissed the case. on the amount of the claim.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject In this case, since the total selling price is less than 20,000 it
matter? appears that MTC has jurisdiction over the case, however it is
RULING: The petition is meritorious. Jurisdiction of the RTCs incorrect since the reacquisition of the lot is but incidental to
is provided in Sec. 19 of BP 129, which reads: and offshoot of the exercise of the right to repurchase the lot in
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil cases. – RTCs shall exercise question and is not the principal or main relief or remedy
exclusive jurisdiction: sought.
1 In all civil actions which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
Court (MTC). Since the case was filed with the RTC, a second
level court, the RTC’s decision should be rendered void for
CASE 2: INOCENCIA TAGALOG, Petitioner, lack of jurisdiction over the case.
vs. MARIA LIM VDA. DE GONZALEZ, GAUDENCIA L. Issue: The main issue for our resolution iswhether the Regional
BUAGAS, RANULFO Y. LIM, DON L. CALVO, SUSAN Trial Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
C. SANTIAGO, DINA C. ARANAS, and RUFINA C. action.
RAMIREZ, Respondents. Ruling: The jurisdiction of a particular court is determined by
Facts: On 5 February 2003, respondents Maria Lim Vda. de the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the
Gonzalez, Gaudencia L. Buagas, Ranulfo Y. Lim, Don L. allegations in the complaint. In order to determine whether the
Calvo, Susan C. Santiago, Dina C. Aranas, and Rufina C. lower court had jurisdiction, it is necessary to first ascertain the
Ramirezfiled with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo nature of the complaint filed before it.It is clear that the case
City, Cebu, Branch 29, a Complaint 4 for Recovery of involves only the issue of physical possession or unlawful
Possession, Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with a Prayer detainer as defined in Section 1 Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
for a Temporary Restraining Order with Damages and In De Leon v. CA, we held that unlawful detainer is the
Attorney’s Fees was filed against petitioner Inocencia Tagalog withholding by a person from another of the possession of a
(Tagalog). Respondents alleged that Tagalog occupied a portion land or building to which the latter is entitled after the
of the land as lessee and paid rent on a month to month basis expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold
by virtue of a verbal contract. Tagalog built a house with light possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied. An
materials on the land and when a strong typhoon hit Cebu, ejectment suit is brought before the MTC to recover not
Tagalog’s house was damaged. Thereafter, respondents alleged possession de jure but physical possession only or possession
that Tagalog discontinued payingthe rent and stopped de facto, where dispossession has lasted for not more than one
inhabiting the house. Respondents informed Tagalog to vacate year. Clearly, the RTC erred in not dismissing the case before
the premises asserting that the verbal contract of lease was it.1âwphi1 Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of the court
deemed terminated upon the expiration of the monthly to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court has no
contract. However, Tagalog refused to vacate claiming that she jurisdiction over the subject matter. In sum, since respondents'
was still a lessee.The RTC ruled that, in the complaint, complaint should have been filed with the MTC, the RTC
respondents prayed for the recovery of possession of the leased seriously erred in proceeding with the case. The proceedings
property as owners. Thus, the issue of ownership, which was before a court without jurisdiction, including its decision, are
within the original jurisdiction of the court was primordial and null and void. It then follows that the appeal brought before the
the prayer for eviction was merely incidental there being no appellate court, as well as the decisions or resolutions
written contract of lease between the parties.Petitioner promulgated in accordance with said appeal, is without force
contends that the subject of the action is for unlawful detainer, and effect.
thus cognizable by a first level court or the Municipal Trial
CASE 3: EDUARDO D. MONSANTO, DECOROSO D. restructured and that Eduardo had commenced paying monthly
MONSANTO, SR., and REV. FR. PASCUAL D. amortizations; that as a result of the restructuring, Pag-IBIG is
MONSANTO, JR., Petitioners, withdrawing its Petition for Extra-judicial Foreclosure; and that
vs. LEONCIO LIM and LORENZO DE GUZMAN, it is no longer interested in pursuing an administrative action
Respondents. September 17, 2014, G.R. No. 178911 against De Guzman. Leoncio opposed Pag-IBIG’s
Facts: manifestation. Leoncio filed a Manifestation with Ex-Parte
Flordelis Menzon, Regional Director of the Home Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession claiming that the
Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG), requested the reglementary period had elapsed without Eduardo redeeming
intervention of Executive Judge Monsanto of the Regional the subject property; as such, he is already entitled to the
Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar on the alleged anomalous issuance of a writ of possession. RTC finds that the instant
auction sale conducted by Sheriff IV Lorenzo De Guzman. motion to lift writ of execution and notice to vacate the
According to Pag-IBIG, De Guzman previously acceded to its [premises] is devoid of merit, hence denied. The motion for
request to move the date of the auction sale to January 20, issuance of writ of possession filed by Leoncio Lim through
2004; however, to its surprise, the sale proceeded as originally counsel Atty. Labid being meritorious is hereby ordered
scheduled on January 15, 2004. Pag-IBIG also claimed that the GRANTED, hence let a writ of possession be issued
winning bid ofLeoncio Lim in the amount of P500,000.00 was immediately in favor of Mr. Leoncio Lim purchaser in good
grossly disadvantageous to the government considering that the faith. CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
outstanding loan obligations of the mortgagor, Eduardo RTC.
Monsanto, was more than the bid amount. Executive Judge Ruling:
Monsanto refrained from acting on the letter considering that The Petition is dismissed. “Filing the appropriate initiatory
Eduardo is his relative; instead he re-assigned the same to pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest a
Judge Usman. RTC conducted a hearing; Atty. Cesar Lee trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Section 5,
argued on behalf of Pag-IBIG; and Pascual Monsanto appeared Rule 1 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that “[a] civil
on behalf of Eduardo. Judge Usman noted that no formal action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in
petition or complaint was actually filed which presents a court.” Moreover, “[e]very ordinary civil action must be based
judicial issue; moreover, the acts complained of partake of on a cause of action.” In this case, records show that no formal
administrative matter. Consequently, Judge Usman referred the complaint or petition was filed in court. There being no proper
matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for further initiatory pleading filed, then the RTC Branch 28 did not
action. Pascual filed with the OCA a Motion to Lift Writ of acquire jurisdiction over the matter/case. We have also noted
Execution and Notice to Vacate. The OCA directed Judge that no docket fees were paid before the trial court. Section 1,
Usman to conduct an investigation and take action on he Rule 141 of the Rules of Court mandates that “[u]pon the filing
‘Motion to Lift Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate.’ Pag- of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or
IBIG informed the trial court that the loan of Eduardo had been proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in full.”
the complaint without affording them the right to
“It is hornbook law that courts acquire jurisdiction over a case adduce their evidence on their claim of damages.
only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee.”Since no Petition was denied, the CA affirmed the decision of the
docket or filing fees were paid, then the RTC Branch 28 did not trial court.
acquire jurisdiction over the matter/case. It therefore erred in ISSUE:
taking cognizance of the same. Consequently, all the
proceedings undertaken by the trial court are null and void, and Whether or not the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction
without force and effect. All proceedings, processes and writs to resolve the issue being raised by the petitioners?
emanating therefrom are likewise NULLIFIED and VOIDED RULING:
for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the petitioners had every
CASE 5: Spouses De Pedro vs Romasan Development opportunity to question and object the composition of
the survey team before the trial court, since they failed
Corp and Manuel Ko, G.R. No. 158002
to do so, they cannot now allowed to do the same on
FACTS:Spouses de Pedro filed a complaint appeal and according to the CA, it could not take
against the respondents Romasan Development Corporation judicial noticed of the alleged cases filed against the
and Manuel Ko for damages with prayer for preliminary chairman of the survey team since this was not one of
injunction. The complaint averred that the spouses were the the matters which the court could take judicial notice of
registered owner of a parcel of land, that the respondents whether mandatory or directory.
started putting up a barbed wire fence on the perimeter of the The Supreme Court in denying the petition held that a
adjacent property. Certificate of Title once registered should not thereafter
be impugned, altered, change, modified, enlarged or
The respondents alleged that they were owners of the diminished, except in a direct proceeding permitted by
land as evidenced by a TCT. Then the trial court issued law. The resolution of the issue is thus not dependent on
an order to have a relocation survey of the property to the report of the survey team filed in the trial court.
verify its location. The respondent also filed a The action of the petitioners against the respondents
manifestation motion to dismiss stating that there was based on the material allegations of the complaints is
no legal or factual basis for the complaint as shown on one for recovery of possession of the subject property
the survey reports conducted by the survey team. Hence and damages. However such action is not a direct but a
the petitioners had no cause of action against them. The collateral attack of the TCT. Neither did the respondents
trial court granted the motion to dismiss. directly attack the TCT in their answer to the complaint.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Although the respondents stated in said answer by way
order, alleging it was premature for the court to dismiss of special and affirmative defenses that the subject
property is covered by a TCT issued in the name of the On June 10, 2004, Trinidad Valley Realty Development
respondent corporation and as such the said respondent Corporation, et. al. filed before the Regional Trial Court
is entitled to the possession thereof to the exclusion of (RTC), Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, a
the petitioners such allegation does not constitute a
Petition for Declaration of Unconstitutionality Through
direct attack on the TCT but is likewise a collateral
attack thereon. Thus the court a quo had no jurisdiction Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for
to resolve the decisive issue raised by the parties in the Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and Restraining Order
trial court. against the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the DAR, and
the beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). The DAR filed its Answer and one of their
CASE 6: DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM assertions is that the RTC has no jurisdiction over petitions for
v. TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in agrarian reform cases,
FACTS: which is vested by Section 54 of RA 6657, in the Court of
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, Appeals (CA).
Frannie Greenmeadows Pastures, Inc., Isabel Greenland Agri- Subsequently, Trinidad Valley Realty and Development
based Resources, Inc., Isabel Evergreen Plantations, Inc., Corporation, et. al. filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Petition
Michelle Farms, Inc., Isabel Greenmeadows Quality Products, and for Admission of the Amended Petition in order to change
Inc., Ernesto Baricuatro, Claudio Villo, and Efren Nuevo the nature of the action from a special civil action of certiorari,
(hereinafter, Trinidad Valley Realty and Development prohibition and mandamus to an ordinary action of annulment
Corporation, et. al.) are the registered owners of a parcel of of land titles. The DAR, et. al. opposed the motion in its
land in Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental. The landholding Opposition. The RTC conducted a hearing and held that it had
consists of a total area of 641.7895 – about 200 hectares jurisdiction over the case. LRA and DAR filed a Motion for
thereof are devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. The Reconsideration on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but both
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed 479.8905 motions were denied by the RTC. In petition for certiorari filed
hectares of the said landholding under the coverage of RA 6657 with the CA, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by
between March 1995 and July 2000. Certificates of Land the Solicitor General and the LRA sought to annul the subject
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Transfer Certificates of Titles Order of the RTC. The CA reversed and set aside the Order of
(TCTs) were subsequently issued in favor of the agrarian the RTC.
reform beneficiaries.
CASE 7: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the
REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC.
original and amended petitions filed by the Trinidad Valley (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES
Realty and Development Corporation, et. al. MANUFACTURING, INC.), Respondent.
RULING: The RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case. G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014
HELD: It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the FACTS:
jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is Petitioner is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal
Revenue empowered to perform the duties of said office
determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the
including, among others, the power to decide, approve and
complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is grant refunds or tax credits of erroneously or excessively paid
determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and taxes. Respondent Silicon Philippines, Inc., on the other hand,
cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by
parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged virtue of the laws of the Philippines, engaged primarily in the
or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, and
acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the exporting advance and large–scale integrated circuits
components (ICs).
parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being
6 May 1999, respondent filed with the One–Stop Shop Inter–
legislative in character. The nature of an action, as well as Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the
which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined Department of Finance (DOF) an application for Tax
based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the Credit/Refund of VAT paid for the second quarter of 1998 in
plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled the aggregate amount of P29,559,050.44, representing its
to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The alleged unutilized input tax.
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief Thereafter, since no final action has been taken by petitioner on
respondent’s administrative claim for
sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the
allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested refund, respondent filed a Petition for Review before the Court
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover of Tax Appeals (CTA) on 30 June 2000 docketed as CTA Case
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. No. 6129.
CTA denied respondent’s claim for refund of input VAT on CASE 9: CITY OF LAPU-LAPU, Petitioner, v.
domestic purchases of goods and services attributable to zero– PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, G.R. No.
rated sales on the ground that the export sales invoices 184203
presented in support thereto do not have Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) permit to print, while the sales invoices do not JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
show that the sale was “zero–rated,” all in violation of the FACTS: The City of Lapu-Lapu demanded from the PEZA
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997. P32,912,350.08 in real property taxes for the period from 1992
to 1998 on the PEZA’s properties located in the Mactan
RULING: Economic Zone. PEZA filed a petition for declaratory relief
It should be recalled that the CTA is a court of special with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, praying that the
jurisdiction. As such, it can only take cognizance of such trial court declare it exempt from payment of real property
matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction.22 In view thereof, taxes. The trial court held that all privileges, benefits,
although the parties have not raised the issue of jurisdiction, advantages, or exemptions granted to special economic zones
nevertheless, this Court may motu proprio determine whether created under the Bases Conversion and Development Act of
or not the CTA has jurisdiction over respondent’s judicial claim 1992 apply to special economic zones created under the
for refund taking into consideration, the factual and legal Special Economic Zone Act of 1995. Since these benefits
allegations contained in the pleadings filed by both parties and include exemption from payment of national or local taxes,
found by the court a quo. these benefits apply to special economic zones owned by the
Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125,23 which was PEZA.
thereafter amended by RA No. 9282,24 defines the appellate ISSUES: I. Whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasay had
jurisdiction of the CTA. The said provision, in part, jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the City of Lapu-Lapu’s
reads:chanRoblesvirtualL petition for declaratory relief.
Section 7. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Tax Appeals shall
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as HELD: Yes, The RTC of Pasay had no jurisdiction to hear, try,
herein provided. and decide the City of Lapu-Lapu’s petition for declaratory
(1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases relief. The City was objecting to the venue of the action, not to
involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay. In
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation essence, the City was contending that the PEZA’s petition is a
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal real action as it affects title to or possession of real property,
Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue;
and, therefore, the PEZA should have filed the petition with the
Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City where the real
FACTS:
properties are located. The venue of an action depends on February 15, 1996 – the respondent (Roldan E. Mala), who is a
whether the action is a real or personal action. Should the Muslim, bought a parcel of land from Ceres Canete. March 3,
action affect title to or possession of real property, or interest
1996 – A Transfer Certificate of Title was issued to the
therein, it is a real action. The action should be filed in the
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the respondent but the petitioner (Villagracia), who is a Christian,
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. If the occupied the land. The respondent filed an action against the
action is a personal action, the action shall be filed with the petitioner to recover the possession of the parcel of land before
proper court where the plaintiff or any of the principal the 5th Sharia District Court, which took cognizance of the case
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal and ruled in favor of the respondent (Roldan E. Mala).
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant
where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. ISSUE:
However, whatever objections the City has against the venue of Did the 5th Sharia District Court have jurisdiction over the
the PEZA’s action for declaratory relief are already deemed person of the petitioner (Villagracia), who is a Christian?
waived. Objections to venue must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity. The City did not file a motion to dismiss RULING: No, the 5th Sharia Distrit Court did not have the
the petition on the ground that the venue was improperly laid. jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner (Villagracia), who
Neither did the City raise this objection in its answer. In any
is a Christian. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the person
event, the law sought to be judicially interpreted in this case
had already been breached. The Regional Trial Court of Pasay, is the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to
therefore, had no jurisdiction over the PEZA’s petition for subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and
declaratory relief against the City. other rulings rendered in the action. A court acquires the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by voluntary
appearance or valid service of summons. The law (Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines) which confers
jurisdiction to the Sharia District Court, provides that the same
has concurrent original jurisdiction with existing civil actions
over real actions not arising from customary contracts wherein
CASE 10: Villagracia v. 5th Sharia District Court (GR. No. the parties involved are Muslims. In this case, the 5 th Sharia
188832; April 23, 2014) District Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the petitioner (Villagracia) because he is not a Muslim who can 2. Hence, Land Bank's petition, asserting among others,
participate in the proceedings as provided by the Code of that the case is dismissible for improper venue.
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Manila RTC has jurisdiction over
CASE 14: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. the instant prohibition case and
ATLANTA INDUSTRIES, INC., G.R. No. 193796, July 2, eventually issue the writ prayed for.
2014
RULING: No. While the Court, Court of Appeals and
FACTS: Petitioner Land Bank, entered into a Subsidiary Loan Regional Trial Court have original concurrent jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, if what is
Agreement and with the City Government of Iligan to finance
assailed relates to "acts or omissions of a lower court or of a
the development and expansion of the city's water supply corporation, board, officer or person," the petition must be filed
system. "in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area as defined by the Court."
Accordingly, the City Government of Iligan, through its Bids
and Awards Committee (BAC), conducted a public bidding Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court corresponds to Section
wherein respondent Atlanta Industries, Inc. (Atlanta) 21 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as "The
participated, however was disqualified. Atlanta decided to have Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980" (BP 129), which gives
its disqualification reconsidered by the BAC, however opted, Regional Trial Courts original jurisdiction over cases of
instead, to participate in the re-bidding of the project. certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, and injunction but lays down the limitation that the
writs issued therein are enforceable only within their respective
Apprehensive of the BAC's use of bidding documents that territorial jurisdictions.
appeared to be in contravention of RA 9184 and its IRR,
Undoubtedly, the writ of prohibition issued by the Manila RTC
Atlanta filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with an
in order to restrain acts beyond the bounds of the territorial
urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order limits of its jurisdiction (i.e., in Iligan City) is null and void.
(TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the re- Moreover, the necessity for the complaining bid participant to
bidding of the project against the City Government of Iligan, complete the protest process before resorting to court action
the BAC, and Land Bank before the Manila RTC. cannot be overemphasized. It is a condition precedent to the
court's taking cognizance of an action that assails a bid process.
1. Manila RTC rendered a decision in favor of Atlanta and
declared the subject bidding null and void.
When precipitately taken prior to the completion of the protest The Decision of the trial court eventually lapsed into finality
process, such case shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction which paved the way for the RTC-43 Decision to lapse into
finality.
CASE 16: Rubio vs Alabata The respondent’s motion to withdraw was granted by the
(G.R. No. 203947; February 26, 2014) CA and eventually became final and executory on June 20,
Parties: 1997.
Rufa A. Rubio, Bartolome Bantoto, Leon Alagadmo,
Judgment was later on issued and recorded in CA Book of
Rodrigo Delicta, and Adriano Alabata (Petitioners)
Entries of Judgments.
Lourdes Alabata (Respondent)
Unfortunately, the judgment was not executed within five
(5) years from the date of its entry.
Nature of Action:
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 for A copy of the Entry of Judgment was sent to their SAC-
annulment of the November 16, 2011 Decision and the PAO (Special Appealed Cases Division of PAO) counsel, Atty.
September 26, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) Lourdes Naz. However, they were never informed about the
in CA-G.R. CV No. 02497. entry of judgment.
The CA decision affirmed the February 28, 2008 resolution Atty Naz failed to inform PAO-Dumaguete of the said
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City development. When petitioners followed up with PAO-
denying the petitioner’s plead for revival of judgment. Dumaguete, it was of the belief that the appeal of respondent
was still pending.
Facts: It was only in November 2007 (or more than 10 years after
The parties in this case were involved earlier case for the RTC-43 became final), when petitioners actually learned
annulment of declaration of heirship and sale, reconveyance that the favorable decision became final after their nephew
and damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, secured a copy of the entry of judgment from the trial court.
Dumaguete City. Petitioners eventually filed for an action for revival of
The case was decided in favor of petitioner. judgment through PAO-Dumaguete.
In its October 31, 1995 Decision, the trial court declared the Respondent filed for an Answer with Affirmative Defense
“Declaration of Heirship and Sale" void and ordered the and Motion to Dismiss.
respondent to reconvey the entire subject property to RTC Branch 42 granted her Motion to dismiss.
petitioners. Petitioners appealed before the CA. The appeal and the
As a matter of course, the respondent appealed to the CA. subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
She, however, later withdrew her appeal. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Is the RTC correct in strictly applying the procedural rules on and withdrew her appeal and (2) that no fault could be
prescription and dismissing the action for revival of judgment attributed to petitioners. The Public Attorney’s Office,
filed by the petitioners? specifically the Special Appealed Cases Division, failed to
Yes. On the novel element in the class suit filed by the On October 19, 1998, RTC-Br. 8, Davao City rendered its
petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do decision in favor of one Sy Sen Ben, the plaintiff in a
ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement collection case, against defendants Robert Limso, So Keng
of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of Koc, et al. The defendants were directed to transfer the subject
their own and future generations. Xxx. The liberalization of properties in favor of Sy Sen Ben. The latter subsequently sold
standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors the subject properties to one Nilda Lam who, in turn, sold the
and generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules same to JEWM on June 1, 2000. TCT Nos. 325675 and 325676
which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. were then eventually issued in the name of JEWM, both of
The provision on citizen suits in the Rules "collapses the which still bearing the same annotations as well as the notice of
traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle lis pendens in connection with the other pending cases filed
that humans are stewards of nature." against So Keng Kok. A year thereafter, Spouses Jesus G.
Crisologo and Nannette B. Crisologo prevailed in the separate
collection case filed before RTC-Br. 15, Davao City against the
same defendants. Thus, on July 1, 1999, the said defendants
were ordered to solidarily pay the Spouses Crisologo. After the
issuance of writ of execution, the Branch Sheriff issued a
notice of sale scheduling an auction the properties covered by
TCT Nos. 325675 and 325676, now, in the name of JEWM. To
protect its interest, JEWM filed a separate action before RTC-
Br. 14 for cancellation of lien with prayer for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction, cancellation of all the annotations on
the back of the pertinent TCTs; and the issuance of a
CASE 22: JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANETTE B. permanent injunction order after trial on the merits. The
CRISOLOGO, Petitioners, vs. JEWM AGRO- counsel then of spouses Crisologo questioned the authority of
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, respondent. the said court to restrain the execution proceedings in RTC-Br.
G. R. No. 196894, March 3, 2014 15. But JEWM opposed it on the ground that Spouses
Crisologo were not parties in the case. No motion to intervene
was, however, filed as the Spouses Crisologo believed that it joinder of indispensable parties is the complete determination
was unnecessary since they were already the John and Jane of all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves
Does named in the complaint of JEWM. but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the
judgment. In this case, RTC-Br. 14, despite repeated pleas by
ISSUE: Spouses Crisologo to be recognized as indispensable parties,
Whether or not Spouses Crisologo are considered as failed to implement the mandatory import of the aforecited
indispensable parties in the case for cancellation of lien. rule.
Petitioners claim that the acts of these representatives are Evidently, the votes cast by these mere representatives in favor
violative of the well-settled principle that delegated power of the adoption of the said Resolutions must not be considered
cannot be further delegated. Thus, petitioners conclude that the in determining whether or not the necessary number of votes
questioned Resolutions have been illegally issued as it were not was garnered in order that the assailed Resolutions may be
issued by a duly constituted board since no quorum existed validly enacted.
because only three of the nine members, as provided under
Section 48 of the EPIRA Law, were present and qualified to sit Hence, there being only three valid votes cast out of the nine
and vote. board member, the NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No.
2002-125 are void and are of no legal effect.
ISSUES: 1. whether or not there is undue delegation of
delegated power when only the representatives of certain
members of the NPB attended the board meetings and passed
and signed the questioned Resolutions.