You are on page 1of 5

274. Carmelita T. Panganiban vs.

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Petitioner questions the preference given by the Regional Trial Court and the
G.R. No. 131417, January 22, 2003, Carpio, J. Court of Appeals to the unlawful detainer case filed by private respondent.
Petitioner maintains that based on priority in time, the action for declaratory
Facts: This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the CA. Panganiban relief, the case filed earlier, should not have been abated in favor of the ejectment
entered into a Sublease and Dealer Agreement (SLDA) with Pilipinas Shell suit, a case filed much later. Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil
Petroleum Corporation. Through the SLDA, Pilipinas subleased to Panganiban a action refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the
gasoline station in Caloocan City. The property was owned by Serafin Vasquez same parties for the same cause of actions and that the second action becomes
and was covered by a Lease Agreement with Pilipinas from January 1, 1987 to unnecessary and vexatious. We have set the relevant factors that a court must
December 31, 2002. In a letter, Pilipinas informed Panganiban that the SLDA was consider when it has to determine which case should be dismissed given the
about to expire and advised her to wind up her business on or before July 31, pendency of two actions. These are: “(1) the date of filing, with preference
1995. Believing that the SLDA has not expired and was still effective until generally given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action
December 31, 2002, Panagabinabn continued paying rentals. Pilipinas refused to sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt the latter action or to
receive the payments. anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and (3) whether the action
Panganiban filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC. Pilipinas filed its is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties.”
Answer. Pilipinas also filed an unlawful detainer case before the MTC. 8 months An action for unlawful detainer is filed by a person from whom possession of any
after the Answer in the RTC case was filed, Panganiban filed a MD. It claimed that land or building is unlawfully withheld by another after the expiration or
the issue of the renewal of the lease should be raised in the unlawful detainer termination of the latter’s right to hold possession under a contract, express or
case pending before the MTC. implied. Clearly, the interpretation of a provision in the SLDA as to when the
The MTC issued a decision in favor of Pilipinas. On appeal, the RTC ordered the SLDA would expire is the key issue that would determine petitioner’s right to
dismissal of the petition for declaratory relief. It ruled that considering that there possess the gasoline service station. When the primary issue to be resolved is
has been a breach of SLDA on the part of the Panganiban as said leased had physical possession, the issue should be threshed out in the ejectment suit, and
supposedly expired on 31 July 1995, and that consequently, an ejectment has not in any other case such as an action for declaratory relief to avoid multiplicity
already been filed against Panganiban by Pilipinas before the MTC so that in this of suits.
petition, and considering further that the issue on possession can be threshed out Indeed, the action for declaratory relief had become vexatious. It would have
in the said ejectment cased based on jurisprudence in Rosales vs. CFI. On review, been an exercise in futility for the Regional Trial Court to continue the
the CA upheld the order of the trial court dismissing the petition for declaratory proceedings in the action for declaratory relief when the Metropolitan Trial Court
relief on the ground of litis pendentia had already ruled that the term of the SLDA was for only five years or until July
Issue: WON the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of civil case on motion 31, 1995. Moreover, the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court once it attains
of Pilipinas on the ground of litis pendentia which was filed long after Pilipinas finality would amount to res judicata. The proper forum for petitioner to clarify
had filed its answer. the provision of the SLDA on the expiration of the term of the contract is in her
appeal of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court in the unlawful detainer
Decision: case.
NO. The requirement that a motion to dismiss should be filed within the time for Petitioner erroneously believes that the unlawful detainer case should have been
filing the answer is not absolute. Even after an answer has been filed, defendant dismissed because private respondent was already guilty of laches when it filed
can still file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction, the ejectment suit 269 days from July 31, 1995, the date private respondent
(2) litis pendentia (3) lack of cause of action, and (4) discovery during trial of claims the SLDA expired. A complaint for unlawful detainer should be filed within
evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal. Litis pendentia is also one one year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession occurs.
of the grounds that authorize a court to dismiss a case motu proprio. When the action is to terminate the lease because of the expiration of its term, it

Page 1 of 5
is upon the expiration of the term of the lease that the lessee is already considered writ. The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. The MTC granted
to be unlawfully withholding the property. The expiration of the term of the lease the MD. On appeal, the CFI sustained the MTC.
immediately gives rise to a cause of action for unlawful detainer. In such a case, a
demand to vacate is no longer necessary. Private respondent therefore had one Issue: WON the court has jurisdiction over the person of the defending party
year or 365 days from July 31, 1995 to file the case for unlawful detainer. Laches Decision:
definitely had not yet set in when private respondent filed the unlawful detainer
case 269 days after the expiration of the SLDA. Private respondent did not sleep No. On the basis of the foregoing considerations we are of the belief and we hold
on its right when it filed the unlawful detainer case well within the prescriptive that the real party defendant in interest is the Government of the United States of
period for filing the action. America; that any judgment for back or increased rentals or damages will have to
be paid not by defendants Moore and Tillman and their 64 co-defendants but by
the said U.S. Government. On the basis of the ruling in the case of Land vs. Dollar
275. United States of America , Capt. James E. Galloway, William I. Colllins already cited, and on what we have already stated, the present action must be
and Robert Gohier, vs. Hon V.M. Ruiz, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court considered as one against the U.S. Government. It is clear that the courts of the
of First Instance of Rizal and Eligio De Guzman & Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-35645, Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the
May 22, 1985, Abad Santos, J. present case at hand interposed at the very beginning of the action. The U.S.
Government has not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially
Facts: This is a petition for review. United States invited the submission of bids against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing
for projects for the repair of wharves and shoreline. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. a suit against his own Government without the latter’s consent but it is of a citizen
responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Thereafter, a letter was sent filing an action against a foreign government without said government’s consent,
saying that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country.
because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract for The principles of law behind this rule are so elementary and of such general
the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay. The acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof.
company sued the United States of America and Messrs. James E. Galloway,
William I. Collins and Robert Gohier all members of the Engineering Command of WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent
the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order the plaintiff to allow the company to judge are set aside and Civil Case No. 779-M is dismissed. Costs against the
perform the work on the projects and, in the event that specific performance was private respondent.
no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay damages. In its complaint, the
company alleged that the US had accepted its bids because “A request to confirm
a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant US 276. Editha Padlan vs. Elenita Dinglasan and Felicisio Dinglasan, G.R. No.
bidding practices.” 180321, March 20, 2013, Peralta, J.

The defendants entered their special appearance “for the purpose only of Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari. Elenita was the registered owner
questioning the jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the complaint of a parcel of land. Elenita’s mother, Lilila had a conversation with Maura Passion
and the persons of defendants, the subject matter of the complaint being acts and regarding the sale of the said property. Believing that Maura was a real estate
omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant United States of agent, Lilia borrowed the TCT from Elenita and gave it to Maura. Maura then
America, a foreign sovereign which has not given her consent to this suit or any subdivided the property into several lots, under the name of Elenita and her
other suit for the causes of action asserted in the complaint.” husband Felecisimo. Through a falsified deed of sale bearing the forged signature
of Sps. Dinglasan, Maura was able to sell the lots to different buyers. Maura sold
Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which the lot to Lorna Ong. Lorna, then sold to Editha Padlan the said lot.
included an opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The
company opposed the motion. The trial court denied the motion and issued the
Page 2 of 5
For Padlan’s failure to surrender possession of the said lot to Sps. Dinglasan, they property itself.” “Title” is different from a “certificate of title” which is the
initiated a complaint for the cancellation of Padlan’s TCT. Summons was served document of ownership under the Torrens system of registration issued by the
to Editha’s mother Anita. Sps. Dinglasan moved to declare Editha in default and government through the Register of Deeds. While title is the claim, right-or
prayed that they be allowed to present evidence ex parte. Editha filed an interest in real property, a certificate of title is the evidence of such claim.
Oppossiton to Declare Defendant in Default with MD for lack of jurisdiction over
the person of defendant because the summons was not validly served upon her
person, but only by means of substituted service through her mother. 277. Universal Robina Corporation vs. Alberty Lim, doing businesss under
The RTC ruled that Editha was a buyer in good faith, and consequently dismissed the name and style New H-R Grocery, G.R. No. 154338, October 5, 2007,
the complaint. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC. It ruled that Editha was a Sandoval-Gutierrez, J
buyer in bad faith. Editha filed a MR arguing that the court did not acquire Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. URC sold to Lim
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and subject matter of the complaint. grocery products in the total amount of P808, 059.88. After tendering partial
The CA applying the ruling in Tijam vs Sibonghanoy that when the RTC denied payments, respondent refused to settle his obligation despite repeated demands.
petitioner’s MD, petitioner neither moved for a reconsideration of the order nor
did she avail of any remedy provided by the Rules. Instead, she kept silent and URC filed with the RTC a complaint for a sum of money against Lim. The trial court
only became interested in the case again when the CA rendered an adverse issued an Order dismissing the complaint motu propio of the ground of lack of
decision. jurisdiction and improper venue. It ruled that there is not even a remote
connection by the parties to Quezon City, where this RTC sits, the plaintiff
Issue: WON the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case corporation has principal office at Pasig City and the Lim is, as provided in the
Decision: complaint, from Laaog City. URC filed an MR with an amended complaint alleging
that the parties agreed that the proper venue for any dispute relative to the
NO. In order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action, an transaction is Quezon City. It was granted. Summons was served upon Lim.
examination of the complaint is essential. Basic as a hornbook principle is that However, due to his failure to seasonably file his Answer the court, upon motion
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by URC, declared him in default and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence.
by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, However, the trial court was still unsure whether the venue was properly laid,
as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the hence it issued an Order directing URC to file a Memorandum of Authorities.
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or Subsequently, the trial court again dismissed the complaint.
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint due to URC’s failure to attach thereto
therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are an explanation why copies of the petition were not served by personal service
the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, but by registered mail, in violation of Section 11, Rule 14.
jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. What Issue: WON the trial court may dismiss motu propio petitioner’s complaint on
determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as the ground of improper venue
appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the
Decision:
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.
NO. In personal actions, the plaintiff may commence an action either in the place
An action “involving title to real property” means that the plaintiffs cause of
of his or her residence or the place where the defendant resides. However, the
action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal
parties may agree to a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of
rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the
them resides.
same. Title is the “legal link between (1) a person who owns property and (2) the
Page 3 of 5
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the unto themselves, as owners, the undivided rights and interests which they
answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the claimed Urbano had over Lot 1048.
evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that
there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or Heirs of Marciano Roxas, through Reginal S. Roxas, filed a complaint for annulemt
that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court of documents, cancellation of title and damages with prayer of preliminary
shall dismiss the claim. Implicit from the above provision is that improper venue injunction against Juanita Galindo Rivera. Defendant filed a MD based on the
not impleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived. Thus, following grounds: (1) Plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sure; and (2) that the
a court may not dismiss an action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue cause of action is barred by statute of limitations.
as it is not one of the grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu The trial court denied the motion. It ruled that they were the legititmate children
proprio on the basis of the pleadings. of the deceased Roxas, such plaintiffs are the real parties-in-interest. On the
second, it was an action for quieting of title, which commenced only in 1998,
hence, it is not yet barred. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
278. Felicissima Galindo, Nestor Galindo, Beatriz Galindo, Catalina Galindo,
Danilo Galindo, Librada Galindo, Cesar Galindo, Juanita Galindo Rivera Issue: WON the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue
and/or the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan vs. Heirs of Marciano Decision
Roxas, represented by Reginald S. Roxas, G.R. No. 147969, January 17, 2005,
Callejo, Sr., J The general rule is that only those parties in a case and their privies and
successors-in-interest are bound by the order or decision of the trial court.
Facts: Lot 1048 was possessed by the late Gregorio Galindo. Gregorio died Persons or entities who are not parties to the case are not and should not be
intestate, leaving as his only heir his children. Subsequently, his children sold bound or adversely affected by the said order or decision; otherwise, they will be
whatever his rights and interest Gregorio had in the Lot 1048 to Marciano Roxas. deprived of their right to due process. Since the petitioners, except petitioner
In the said document, the signatories thereto obligated themselves to transfer the Juanita Galindo Rivera, were not parties in the RTC and in the CA, they are not
land to Marciano A. Roxas as soon as it would become feasible to do so, and as bound by the assailed orders of the RTC and the decision of the CA against
security that Urbano Galindo would ratify the same upon reaching the age of petitioner Juanita Galindo Rivera; hence, they are not the proper parties to appeal
majority, Florencio Galindo ceded to Marciano A. Roxas title to Lot 833. On from and assail the said orders of the RTC and the decision of the CA.
February 13, 1948, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2145 covering the property
in question was issued by the Register of Deeds of Bulacan in the name of the All the petitioners, who executed the said deed, are indispensable parties as
legal heirs of Gregorio Galindo. This, on account of the fact that the sale of the parties defendants in the RTC and as parties-petitioners in the CA under Section
right of Gregorio Galindo made by his heirs in favor of Marciano A. Roxas was not 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, and should have been impleaded by the
registered with the Bureau of Lands because of the minority of Urbano Galindo respondents in their complaint. Without the presence of the said petitioners as
at the time. Marciano Roxas died intestate and was survived by his widow, Cirila defendants, the trial court could not validly render judgment and grant relief to
Roxas and their nine children. Said heirs filed an action for specific performance the respondents. The failure of the respondents to implead all the petitioners as
against the heirs of Gregorio Galindo with the CFI of Bulacan to compel the latter parties- defendants constituted a legal obstacle to the trial court and the appellate
to execute a deed of absolute sale over a parcel of land.The trial court ruled in court’s exercise of judicial power over the said cases and rendered any orders or
favor of Marciano Roxas. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. judgments rendered therein a nullity. The absence of an indispensable party
renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to
In the meantime, Urbano Galindo died intestate. On December 16, 1997, act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. The RTC should
Felicissima, the widow of Urbano, and their children, Nestor, Juanita, Beatriz, have ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Catalina, Danilo, Librada and Cesar, all surnamed Galindo, executed an Court provides that only persons or juridical persons or entities authorized by
“Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Urbano Galindo and/or law may be parties in a civil action. Section 4, Rule 8 of the said Rules further
the Deceased Gregorio Galindo with Waiver of Rights” in which they adjudicated
Page 4 of 5
provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the
authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity must be averred
in the complaint. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff
must have an actual legal existence, that is, he or she or it must be a person in law
and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person, and no
suit can lawfully be prosecuted in the name of that person. The party bringing
suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative character that
he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff
but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed
and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. An unauthorized
complaint does not produce any legal effect. Corollary, the defendants can assail
the facts alleged in the complaint through a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the plaintiff has no capacity to sue under Section 1(d) of Rule 16 of the Rules of
Court, that is, that he does not have the representative he claims.

Page 5 of 5

You might also like