Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

165423 January 19, 2011

2. That the said five-sixth (5/6) portion which [is] herein adjudged as being owned by the herein plaintiffs, include the portions of land presently being occupied by defendants x x x, Concesa Padre, x x x; 3. Ordering the defendants mentioned in No. 2 hereof to vacate x x x the lots respectively occupied by them and restore to [the herein plaintiffs] the material possessions thereof; 4. Condemning and ordering each of the same defendants herein above-named to pay plaintiffs the amount of P100.00 per month, as monthly rental, starting from January 19, 1980, until the lots in question shall have been finally restored to the plaintiffs; and 5. Condemning and ordering the herein defendants named above to jointly and severally pay the plaintiffs the amount of P5,000.00 representing attorneys fees and P2,000.00 as litigation expenses, and to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.4 This Decision became final and executory on November 5, 1986.5 On December 29, 1997, the Badillo family filed another complaint against those who occupy their property which included some of the defendants in Civil Case No. A514.6 The case was filed with the MTC of San Isidro, Northern Samar and was docketed as Civil Case No. 104.7 As Consesa Padre had already died in 1989, her heir, Nilo Padre (Nilo), was impleaded as one of the defendants. While some of the defendants filed their respective answers, Nilo was one of those who were declared in default for failure to file their answer to the complaint.8 Although denominated as one for "Ownership and Possession," the Badillo family alleged in their complaint in Civil Case No. 104 viz: 4. That plaintiffs are the joint owners of Lot No. 4080. Pls-54, with a total area of 10,167 square meters, covered by OCT No. 736 in the name of Eutequio Badillo, deceased husband of plaintiff Fructosa Badillo and father of the rest of the other plaintiffs, covered by Tax Declaration No. 9160 and assessed atP26,940.00; 5. That plaintiffs in Civil Case No. A-514, entitled Fructosa Badillo versus Celso Castillo, et. al., were the prevailing parties in the aforesaid case as evidenced by the hereto attached copy of the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court in the above-entitled case and marked as Annex "A" and made integral part of this complaint;

NILO PADRE, Petitioner, vs. FRUCTOSA BADILLO, FEDILA BADILLO, PRESENTACION CABALLES, EDWINA VICARIO (d) represented by MARY JOY VICARIO-ORBETA and NELSON BADILLO, Respondents. DECISION DEL CASTILLO, J.: "A void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect."1 This petition for review on certiorari assails the Orders dated July 21 and September 20, 20042 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Allen, Northern Samar, Branch 23 in Special Civil Action No. A-927, which affirmed the ruling of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Isidro, Northern Samar that it has jurisdiction to try Civil Case No. 104. Factual Antecedents On October 13, 1986, the RTC of Allen, Northern Samar, Branch 23, rendered judgment3 in Civil Case No. A-514 for Ownership and Recovery of Possession with Damages in favor of therein plaintiffs Fructosa Badillo, Fedila Badillo, Edwina Badillo, Presentacion Badillo and Nelson Badillo and against therein defendants, including Consesa Padre. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, on preponderance of evidence, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, declaring and ordering as follows: 1. That the herein plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the five-sixth (5/6) portion of Lot No. 4080, Pls-54, registered in Original Certificate of Title No. 736, more particularly, the said five-sixth portion is described, delineated and/or indicated in the Sketch Plan which is now marked as Exhibit "B-1";

6. That after the judgment in the above-mentioned case became final, the same was executed as evidenced by a copy of the writ of execution hereto attached as Annex "B" and made integral part hereof; 7. That despite the service of the writ of execution and vacating the properties x x x illegally occupied by the afore-mentioned defendants, [said defendants] reentered the property in 1990 after the execution and refused to vacate the same [thereby] reasserting their claims of ownership x x x despite repeated demands; 8. That all attempts towards a peaceful settlement of the matter outside of Court to avoid a civil suit, such as referring the matter of the Brgy. Captain and the Brgy. Lupon of Brgy. Alegria, San Isidro, N. Samar were of no avail as the defendants refused to heed lawful demands of plaintiffs to x x x vacate the premises[. I]nstead, defendants claimed ownership of the property in question [and] refused to vacate the same despite repeated demands [such] that having lost all peaceful remedies, plaintiffs were constrained to file this suit. Certificate to file Action is hereby attached and marked as Annex "C" and made integral part hereof;9 (Emphasis supplied.) Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court The MTC rendered judgment10 on July 17, 2003. Interpreting the suit of the Badillo family as an action to revive the dormant judgment in Civil Case No. A-514, the court recognized the right of the plaintiffs to finally have such judgment enforced. The MTC disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is ordered reviving the previous judgment of the Regional Trial Court there being, and still, preponderance of evidence in favor of plaintiffs, as follows: 1. That the herein plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the five-sixth (5/6) portion of Lot No. 4080, Pls-54, registered in Original Certificate of Title No. 730, more particularly x x x described, delineated and/or indicated in the Sketch Plan which is now marked as Exhibit "B-1"; 2. That the said five-sixth portion which is herein adjudged as being owne[d] by herein plaintiffs, includes the portions of land presently being occupied by defendants Victor Eulin, Consesa Padre, Celso Castillo, Leo Atiga, Santos Corollo, Iego Armogela, Salustiano Millano, Milagros Gile, Pusay Enting, Galeleo Pilapil, more particularly indicated in Exhibit "B-1" and marked as Exhibits "B-3", "B-4", "B-5," "B-6," "B-7," "B-8," "B-9," "B-10," "B-11," "B-12," and "B-13", respectively; 3. Ordering the defendants mentioned in No. 2, hereof and THOSE PRESENTLY NAMED AS PARTY-DEFENDANTS IN THIS REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT AND THOSE ACTING IN PRIVITY to vacate from the lots

respectively occupied by them and restore [to] the herein plaintiff x x x the material possession thereof; 4. Condemning and ordering each of the same defendants named in the previous civil case and those NAMED ANEW to jointly and severally pay the plaintiffs the amount of P5,000.00, representing attorneys fees, and P2,000.00 as litigation expenses; 5. CONDEMNING ALL DEFENDANTS HEREIN TO PAY EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR OBSTINATELY VIOLATING THE DECISION OF THE COURT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY X X X THE AMOUNT OF P5,000.00, and to pay the costs of the suit. SO ORDERED.11 Nilo thereafter appeared and moved to reconsider 12 the MTC judgment. He argued that the MTC is without jurisdiction over the case, opining that the action for revival of judgment is a real action and should be filed with the same court, i.e., the RTC, which rendered the decision sought to be revived. Or, assuming arguendo that the MTC has jurisdiction over real actions, it must be noted that the subject property is assessed at P26,940.00, an amount beyond the P20,000.00 limit for the MTC to have jurisdiction over real actions, in accordance with Republic Act (RA) No. 7691. 13 Nilo also contended that the action is dismissible for a) lack of certificate of non-forum shopping in the complaint and b) prescription, the complaint for revival of judgment having been filed beyond the 10-year reglementary period14 from the time the judgment sought to be revived became final and executory in November 1986. The MTC denied the motion for reconsideration. 15 It held that the case is an action for revival of judgment and not an action for ownership and possession, which had already long been settled. To the MTC, the former is a personal action under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court which may be filed, at the election of plaintiffs, either at the court of the place where they reside or where the defendants reside. The court found excusable the absence of the certification against forum shopping, justifying that the action filed before it is merely a continuation of the previous suit for ownership. Moreover, the counsel for the Badillo family, a nonagenarian, may not yet have been familiar with the rule when Civil Case No. 104 was filed. To it, this mistake should not prejudice the Badillo family who deserve to possess and enjoy their properties. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court By way of a special civil action for certiorari, Nilo elevated the case to the RTC to question the MTCs jurisdiction,16 reiterating the same grounds he had raised before the MTC. The case was docketed as Special Civil Action No. A-927. On July 21, 2004, however, the RTC dismissed said petition17 on the ground that it was filed late. Moreover, the RTC upheld the MTCs jurisdiction over the case, affirming the

MTCs ratiocination that an action for enforcement of a dormant judgment is a personal action, and hence may be filed either at the court of the place where plaintiffs reside or where the defendants reside. In his Motion for Reconsideration,18 Nilo contended that his petition with the RTC was timely filed as shown by the registry receipt dated March 1, 2004,19 stamped on the mailing envelope he used in filing said petition. He argued that this date of mailing is also the date of filing. He also contended that the RTCs Decision was bereft of any explanation as to why it ruled that the case is a personal action. He further alleged that the RTC failed to discuss the issues of prescription and non-compliance with the rule against forum shopping. In its Order dated September 20, 2004, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. It said: Assuming that the date of posting was March 1, 2004, as shown in the registry receipts, still the 60-day reglementary period had already lapsed with December 30, 2003 as the reckoning period when petitioner received the December 9, 2003 Order of Hon. Judge Jose A. Benesisto. With the month of February, 2004 having 29 days, it is now clear that the petition was filed sixty one (61) days after; hence, there is no timeliness of the petition to speak of. Civil Case No. 104 is an ordinary action to enforce a dormant judgment filed by plaintiffs against defendants. Being an action for the enforcement of dormant judgment for damages is a personal one and should be brought in any province where the plaintiff or defendant resides, at the option of the plaintiff. As regards prescription, the present rule now is, the prescriptive period commences to run anew from the finality of the revived judgment. A revived judgment is enforceable again by motion within five years and thereafter by another action within ten years from the finality of the revived judgment. There is, therefore, no prescription or beyond the statute of limitations to speak [sic] in the instant case. Petitioners contention must therefore fail. It is but proper and legal that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 514 of which they are the prevailing parties to institute for the enforcement of a dormant judgment [which right] they have failed to exercise x x x for more than a decade. Being an ordinary action to enforce a dormant judgment, not even testimonial evidence is necessary to enforce such judgment because the decision had long obtained its finality. x x x x20 Hence, this petition. Petitioners Arguments Nilo finds the RTCs adverse ruling as wanting in sufficient explanation as to the factual and legal bases for upholding the MTC. He also highlights the failure of the Badillo family

to attach to their complaint a certificate of non-forum shopping. Petitioner also argues that the date of mailing of his petition with the RTC is the date of his filing. He stressed that the filing of his petition on March 1, 2004 was well within the prescriptive period. As the 60th day from December 30, 2003 fell on a Saturday, he maintains that the Rules of Court allows him to file his petition on the next working day, which is March 1, 2004, a Monday. As have already been raised in the courts below, Nilo mentions the following grounds for the dismissal of the action against him before the MTC: a) The MTC lacks jurisdiction. Nilo reiterates that the prime objective of the Badillo family in Civil Case No. 104 is to recover real property, which makes it a real action. Citing the case of Aldeguer v. Gemelo, 21 he contends that this suit must be brought before the RTC of Allen, Northern Samar. Besides, the assessed value of the land in controversy, i.e., P26,940.00, divests the MTC of jurisdiction. b) Prescription. Nilo claims that the Badillo familys suit had already lapsed as they allowed 11 years to pass without resorting to any legal remedy before filing the action for revival of judgment. Although the Badillo family moved for the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. A-514, the same did not interrupt the running of the period to have the judgment enforced by motion or by action. Respondents Arguments While impliedly acknowledging that Nilo seasonably filed his petition for certiorari with the RTC, the Badillo family note that he should have filed an appeal before the RTC. They claim that they properly filed their case, a personal action, with the MTC of San Isidro, Northern Samar as they are allowed under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court to elect the venue as to where to file their case. Granting that their action is considered a revival of judgment, the Badillos claim that they filed their suit within the 10-year period. They contend that in filing Civil Case No. 104 in December 1997, the prescriptive period should not be counted from the finality of judgment in Civil Case No. A-514, but should be reckoned from August 22, 1989, when the RTC issued an Order that considered as abandoned the motion to declare the defendants in default in the contempt proceedings. Issue The question that should be settled is whether the RTC correctly affirmed the MTC ruling that it has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 104.

Our Ruling Indeed, "[t]he existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes a resort to certiorari."22 The court a quo could have instead dismissed Nilos petition on the ground that this question should have been raised by way of an appeal. 23 This rule is subject to exceptions, such as "when the writs issued are null and void or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority."24 As will be later on discussed, the RTC, although it ultimately erred in its judgment, was nevertheless correct in entertaining the special civil action for certiorari. The exceptions we mentioned apply in the case at bar, as it turns out that petitioners jurisdictional objection has compelling basis. Timeliness of the petition for certiorari The petition for certiorari before the RTC was timely filed. If the pleading filed was not done personally, the date of mailing, as stamped on the envelope or the registry receipt, is considered as the date of filing.25 By way of registered mail, Nilo filed his petition for certiorari with the RTC on March 1, 2004, as indicated in the date stamped on its envelope. From the time Nilo received on December 30, 2003 the MTCs denial of his motion for reconsideration, the last day for him to file his petition with the RTC fell on February 28, 2004, a Saturday. Under the Rules, should the last day of the period to file a pleading fall on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, a litigant is allowed to file his or her pleading on the next working day, 26 which in the case at bar, fell on a Monday, i.e., March 1, 2004. Jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 104 We shall now look into the core argument of Nilo anent the MTCs lack of jurisdiction over the case and the alleged prescription of the action. "[W]hat determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought." 27 In their complaint in Civil Case No. 104, some of the allegations of the Badillo family, which petitioner never opposed and are thus deemed admitted by him, states: 4. That plaintiffs are the joint owners of Lot No. 4080. Pls-54, with a total area of 10,167 square meters, covered by OCT No. 736 in the name of Eutequio Badillo, deceased husband of plaintiff Fructosa Badillo and father of the rest of the other plaintiffs, covered by Tax Declaration No. 9160 and assessed atP26,940.00; 5. That plaintiffs in Civil Case No. A-514, entitled Fructosa Badillo versus Celso Castillo, et. al., were the prevailing parties in the aforesaid case as evidenced by the hereto attached copy of the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court in the above-entitled case and marked as Annex "A" and made integral part of this complaint;

6. That after the judgment in the above-mentioned case became final, the same was executed as evidenced by a copy of the writ of execution hereto attached as Annex "B" and made integral part hereof; 7. That despite the service of the writ of execution and vacating the properties x x x illegally occupied by the afore-mentioned defendants, the latter re-entered the property in 1990 after the execution and refused to vacate the same [thereby] reasserting their claims of ownership over [the disputed properties] and refused to vacate the same despite repeated demands; 8. That all attempts towards a peaceful settlement of the matter outside of Court to avoid a civil suit, such as referring the matter of the Brgy. Captain and the Brgy. Lupon of Brgy. Alegria, San Isidro, N. Samar were of no avail as the defendants refused to heed lawful demands of plaintiffs to x x x vacate the premises[. I]nstead, defendants claimed ownership of the property in question refused to vacate the same despite repeated demands [such] that having lost all peaceful remedies, plaintiffs were constrained to file this suit. Certificate to file Action is hereby attached and marked as Annex "C" and made integral part hereof;28(Emphasis supplied.) Under paragraph 6 of their complaint, the Badillos alleged that judgment in Civil Case No. A-514 had become final and had been executed. Further, in paragraph 7, they alleged that in 1990, the defendants re-entered the property and despite repeated demands they refused to vacate the same. Thus, the Badillos were not at all seeking a revival of the judgment. In reality, they were asking the MTC to legally oust the occupants from their lots. The Badillo family would have been correct in seeking judicial recourse from the MTC had the case been an action for ejectment, i.e., one of forcible entry under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court wherein essential facts constituting forcible entry 29 have been averred and the suit filed within one year from the time of unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, as the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over such suit. 30 However, as the alleged dispossession occurred in 1990, the one-year period to bring a case for forcible entry had expired since the Badillos filed their suit only in December 1997. We thus construe that the remedy they availed of is the plenary action of accion publiciana, which may be instituted within 10 years. 31 "It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty."32 Whether the case filed by the Badillo family is a real or a personal action is irrelevant. Determining whether an action is real or personal is for the purpose only of determining venue. In the case at bar, the question raised concerns jurisdiction, not venue. Although the Badillo family correctly filed a case for accion publiciana, they pleaded their case before the wrong court. In civil cases involving realty or interest therein not within Metro Manila, the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction only if the assessed value of the

subject property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000.00.33 As the assessed value of the property subject matter of this case is P26,940.00, and since more than one year had expired after the dispossession, jurisdiction properly belongs to the RTC. 34 Hence, the MTC has no judicial authority at all to try the case in the first place. "A decision of the court without jurisdiction is null and void; hence, it could never logically become final and executory. Such a judgment may be attacked directly or collaterally."35 Based on the foregoing discussion, it is not anymore necessary to discuss the issue raised concerning the failure to include a certification of non-forum shopping. Although we are compelled to dismiss respondents action before the MTC, they are nonetheless not precluded from filing the necessary judicial remedy with the proper court.
lawphi1

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated July 21 and September 20, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Allen, Northern Samar, Branch 23 in Special Civil Action No. A-927 are hereby SET ASIDE. The Municipal Trial Court of San Isidro, Northern Samar is DIRECTED to dismiss Civil Case No. 104 for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 159618 February 1, 2011

countries appear to have completed the ratification, approval and concurrence process. The Philippines is not among the 92. RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the terms of the non-surrender bilateral agreement (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the RP. Via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-03 7 dated May 13, 2003 (E/N BFO-028-03, hereinafter), the RP, represented by then DFA Secretary Ople, agreed with and accepted the US proposals embodied under the US Embassy Note adverted to and put in effect the Agreement with the US government. In esse, the Agreement aims to protect what it refers to and defines as "persons" of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought against them in international tribunals. 8 It is reflective of the increasing pace of the strategic security and defense partnership between the two countries. As of May 2, 2003, similar bilateral agreements have been effected by and between the US and 33 other countries.9 The Agreement pertinently provides as follows: 1. For purposes of this Agreement, "persons" are current or former Government officials, employees (including contractors), or military personnel or nationals of one Party. 2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the express consent of the first Party, (a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international tribunal for any purpose, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, or (b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third country, or expelled to a third country, for the purpose of surrender to or transfer to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council. 3. When the [US] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the Philippines to a third country, the [US] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of that person by the third country to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, absent the express consent of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines [GRP]. 4. When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the [USA] to a third country, the [GRP] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of

BAYAN MUNA, as represented by Rep. SATUR OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN, and Rep. LIZA L. MAZA,Petitioner, vs. ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and BLAS F. OPLE, in his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Respondents. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case This petition1 for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition under Rule 65 assails and seeks to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement concluded by and between the Republic of the Philippines (RP) and the United States of America (USA). The Facts Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to represent the marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the period material to this case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his capacity as then Executive Secretary.2 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute 3 establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) with " the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern x x x and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions."4 The serious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.5 On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge dAffaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute which, by its terms, is "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval" by the signatory states.6 As of the filing of the instant petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory

that person by the third country to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, absent the express consent of the Government of the [US]. 5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one year after the date on which one party notifies the other of its intent to terminate the Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement shall continue to apply with respect to any act occurring, or any allegation arising, before the effective date of termination. In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the status of the non-surrender agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his letter of October 28, 2003 that the exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding agreement under international law; and that, under US law, the said agreement did not require the advice and consent of the US Senate.10 In this proceeding, petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and ratifying theAgreement and prays that it be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared as without force and effect. For their part, respondents question petitioners standing to maintain a suit and counter that the Agreement, being in the nature of an executive agreement, does not require Senate concurrence for its efficacy. And for reasons detailed in their comment, respondents assert the constitutionality of the Agreement.

B. Whether after the signing and pending ratification of the Rome Statute of the [ICC] the [RP] President and the [DFA] Secretary x x x are obliged by the principle of good faith to refrain from doing all acts which would substantially impair the value of the undertaking as signed. C. Whether the x x x Agreement constitutes an act which defeats the object and purpose of theRome Statute of the International Criminal Court and contravenes the obligation of good faith inherent in the signature of the President affixed on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and if so whether the x x x Agreement is void and unenforceable on this ground. D. Whether the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement is void and unenforceable for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in connection with its execution. II. WHETHER THE RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT IS VOID AB INITIO FOR CONTRACTING OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE EITHER IMMORAL OR OTHERWISE AT VARIANCE WITH UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. III. WHETHER THE x x x AGREEMENT IS VALID, BINDING AND EFFECTIVE WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE BY AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE x x x.11 The foregoing issues may be summarized into two: first, whether or not the Agreement was contracted validly, which resolves itself into the question of whether or not respondents gravely abused their discretion in concluding it; and second, whether or not the Agreement, which has not been submitted to the Senate for concurrence, contravenes and undermines the Rome Statute and other treaties. But because respondents expectedly raised it, we shall first tackle the issue of petitioners legal standing. The Courts Ruling This petition is bereft of merit. Procedural Issue: Locus Standi of Petitioner Petitioner, through its three party-list representatives, contends that the issue of the validity or invalidity of the Agreement carries with it constitutional significance and is of paramount importance that justifies its standing. Cited in this regard is what is usually referred to as the emergency powers cases, 12 in which ordinary citizens and taxpayers were accorded the personality to question the constitutionality of executive issuances.

The Issues I. WHETHER THE [RP] PRESIDENT AND THE [DFA] SECRETARY x x x GRAVELY ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION FOR CONCLUDING THE RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT BY MEANS OF [E/N] BFO-028-03 DATED 13 MAY 2003, WHEN THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY SIGNED THE ROME STATUTE OF THE [ICC] ALTHOUGH THIS IS PENDING RATIFICATION BY THE PHILIPPINE SENATE. A. Whether by entering into the x x x Agreement Respondents gravely abused their discretion when they capriciously abandoned, waived and relinquished our only legitimate recourse through the Rome Statute of the [ICC] to prosecute and try "persons" as defined in the x x x Agreement, x x x or literally any conduit of American interests, who have committed crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, thereby abdicating Philippine Sovereignty.

Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."13 Specifically, it is "a partys personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" 14 of the act being challenged, and "calls for more than just a generalized grievance." 15 The term "interest" refers to material interest, as distinguished from one that is merely incidental. 16 The rationale for requiring a party who challenges the validity of a law or international agreement to allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy is "to assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."17 Locus standi, however, is merely a matter of procedure and it has been recognized that, in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers, or voters who actually sue in the public interest.18 Consequently, in a catena of cases,19 this Court has invariably adopted a liberal stance on locus standi. Going by the petition, petitioners representatives pursue the instant suit primarily as concerned citizens raising issues of transcendental importance, both for the Republic and the citizenry as a whole. When suing as a citizen to question the validity of a law or other government action, a petitioner needs to meet certain specific requirements before he can be clothed with standing. Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.20 expounded on this requirement, thus: In a long line of cases, however, concerned citizens, taxpayers and legislators when specific requirements have been met have been given standing by this Court. When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.21 In the case at bar, petitioners representatives have complied with the qualifying conditions or specific requirements exacted under the locus standi rule. As citizens, their interest in the subject matter of the petition is direct and personal. At the very least, their assertions questioning the Agreement are made of a public right, i.e., to ascertain that the Agreement did not go against established national policies, practices, and obligations bearing on the States obligation to the community of nations. At any event, the primordial importance to Filipino citizens in general of the issue at hand impels the Court to brush aside the procedural barrier posed by the traditional requirement

of locus standi, as we have done in a long line of earlier cases, notably in the old but oftcited emergency powers cases22 and Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr.23In cases of transcendental importance, we wrote again in Bayan v. Zamora,24 "The Court may relax the standing requirements and allow a suit to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review." Moreover, bearing in mind what the Court said in Taada v. Angara, "that it will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or department of the government," 25 we cannot but resolve head on the issues raised before us. Indeed, where an action of any branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution or is done with grave abuse of discretion, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle it. As in this petition, issues are precisely raised putting to the fore the propriety of the Agreement pending the ratification of the Rome Statute. Validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement Petitioners initial challenge against the Agreement relates to form, its threshold posture being that E/N BFO-028-03 cannot be a valid medium for concluding the Agreement. Petitioners contentionperhaps taken unaware of certain well-recognized international doctrines, practices, and jargonsis untenable. One of these is the doctrine of incorporation, as expressed in Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, wherein the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law and international jurisprudence as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation, and amity with all nations.26 An exchange of notes falls "into the category of inter-governmental agreements,"27 which is an internationally accepted form of international agreement. The United Nations Treaty Collections (Treaty Reference Guide) defines the term as follows: An "exchange of notes" is a record of a routine agreement, that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.28 In another perspective, the terms "exchange of notes" and "executive agreements" have been used interchangeably, exchange of notes being considered a form of executive agreement that becomes binding through executive action. 29 On the other hand, executive agreements concluded by the President "sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated agreements or protocols."30 As former US High Commissioner to the Philippines Francis B. Sayre observed in his work, The Constitutionality of Trade Agreement Acts:

The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and agreements whether denominated executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment.31 x x x It is fairly clear from the foregoing disquisition that E/N BFO-028-03be it viewed as the Non-Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral instrument of acceptance thereof or as consent to be boundis a recognized mode of concluding a legally binding international written contract among nations. Senate Concurrence Not Required Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation." 32 International agreements may be in the form of (1) treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive ratification; or (2) executive agreements that are similar to treaties, except that they do not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower range of subject matters than treaties.33 Under international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in terms of their binding effects on the contracting states concerned, 34 as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. 35 Neither, on the domestic sphere, can one be held valid if it violates the Constitution. 36 Authorities are, however, agreed that one is distinct from another for accepted reasons apart from the concurrencerequirement aspect.37 As has been observed by US constitutional scholars, a treaty has greater "dignity" than an executive agreement, because its constitutional efficacy is beyond doubt, a treaty having behind it the authority of the President, the Senate, and the people;38 a ratified treaty, unlike an executive agreement, takes precedence over any prior statutory enactment.39 Petitioner parlays the notion that the Agreement is of dubious validity, partaking as it does of the nature of a treaty; hence, it must be duly concurred in by the Senate. Petitioner takes a cue from Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading , in which the Court reproduced the following observations made by US legal scholars: "[I]nternational agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving international arrangements of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties [while] those embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well established national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature take the form of executive agreements." 40 Pressing its point, petitioner submits that the subject of the Agreement does not fall under any of the subject-categories that are enumerated in the Eastern Sea Trading case, and that may be covered by an executive agreement, such as commercial/consular relations, most-favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and settlement of claims.

In addition, petitioner foists the applicability to the instant case of Adolfo v. CFI of Zambales and Merchant,41holding that an executive agreement through an exchange of notes cannot be used to amend a treaty. We are not persuaded. The categorization of subject matters that may be covered by international agreements mentioned in Eastern Sea Trading is not cast in stone. There are no hard and fast rules on the propriety of entering, on a given subject, into a treaty or an executive agreement as an instrument of international relations. The primary consideration in the choice of the form of agreement is the parties intent and desire to craft an international agreement in the form they so wish to further their respective interests. Verily, the matter of form takes a back seat when it comes to effectiveness and binding effect of the enforcement of a treaty or an executive agreement, as the parties in either international agreement each labor under the pacta sunt servanda42 principle. As may be noted, almost half a century has elapsed since the Court rendered its decision in Eastern Sea Trading. Since then, the conduct of foreign affairs has become more complex and the domain of international law wider, as to include such subjects as human rights, the environment, and the sea. In fact, in the US alone, the executive agreements executed by its President from 1980 to 2000 covered subjects such as defense, trade, scientific cooperation, aviation, atomic energy, environmental cooperation, peace corps, arms limitation, and nuclear safety, among others. 43 Surely, the enumeration in Eastern Sea Trading cannot circumscribe the option of each state on the matter of which the international agreement format would be convenient to serve its best interest. As Francis Sayre said in his work referred to earlier: x x x It would be useless to undertake to discuss here the large variety of executive agreements as such concluded from time to time. Hundreds of executive agreements, other than those entered into under the trade-agreement act, have been negotiated with foreign governments. x x x They cover such subjects as the inspection of vessels, navigation dues, income tax on shipping profits, the admission of civil air craft, custom matters and commercial relations generally, international claims, postal matters, the registration of trademarks and copyrights, etc. x x x And lest it be overlooked, one type of executive agreement is a treaty-authorized 44 or a treaty-implementing executive agreement,45 which necessarily would cover the same matters subject of the underlying treaty. But over and above the foregoing considerations is the fact thatsave for the situation and matters contemplated in Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the Constitution 46when a treaty is required, the Constitution does not classify any subject, like that involving political issues, to be in the form of, and ratified as, a treaty. What the Constitution merely prescribes is that treaties need the concurrence of the Senate by a vote defined therein to complete the ratification process.

Petitioners reliance on Adolfo47 is misplaced, said case being inapplicable owing to different factual milieus. There, the Court held that an executive agreement cannot be used to amend a duly ratified and existing treaty, i.e., the Bases Treaty. Indeed, an executive agreement that does not require the concurrence of the Senate for its ratification may not be used to amend a treaty that, under the Constitution, is the product of the ratifying acts of the Executive and the Senate. The presence of a treaty, purportedly being subject to amendment by an executive agreement, does not obtain under the premises. Considering the above discussion, the Court need not belabor at length the third main issue raised, referring to the validity and effectivity of the Agreement without the concurrence by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. The Court has, in Eastern Sea Trading,48 as reiterated in Bayan,49 given recognition to the obligatory effect of executive agreements without the concurrence of the Senate: x x x [T]he right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history, we have entered executive agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations, most favored-nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned by our courts. The Agreement Not in Contravention of the Rome Statute It is the petitioners next contention that the Agreement undermines the establishment of the ICC and is null and void insofar as it unduly restricts the ICCs jurisdiction and infringes upon the effectivity of the Rome Statute. Petitioner posits that the Agreement was constituted solely for the purpose of providing individuals or groups of individuals with immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC; and such grant of immunity through nonsurrender agreements allegedly does not legitimately fall within the scope of Art. 98 of the Rome Statute. It concludes that state parties with non-surrender agreements are prevented from meeting their obligations under the Rome Statute, thereby constituting a breach of Arts. 27,50 86,51 8952 and 9053 thereof. Petitioner stresses that the overall object and purpose of the Rome Statute is to ensure that those responsible for the worst possible crimes are brought to justice in all cases, primarily by states, but as a last resort, by the ICC; thus, any agreementlike the nonsurrender agreementthat precludes the ICC from exercising its complementary function of acting when a state is unable to or unwilling to do so, defeats the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. Petitioner would add that the President and the DFA Secretary, as representatives of a signatory of the Rome Statute, are obliged by the imperatives of good faith to refrain from performing acts that substantially devalue the purpose and object of the Statute, as signed. Adding a nullifying ingredient to the Agreement, according to petitioner, is the fact that it has an immoral purpose or is otherwise at variance with a priorly executed treaty.

Contrary to petitioners pretense, the Agreement does not contravene or undermine, nor does it differ from, the Rome Statute. Far from going against each other, one complements the other. As a matter of fact, the principle of complementarity underpins the creation of the ICC. As aptly pointed out by respondents and admitted by petitioners, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to "be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions [of the signatory states]."54 Art. 1 of the Rome Statute pertinently provides: Article 1 The Court An International Crimininal Court ("the Court") is hereby established. It x x x shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions . The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute. (Emphasis ours.) Significantly, the sixth preambular paragraph of the Rome Statute declares that "it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes." This provision indicates that primary jurisdiction over the so-called international crimes rests, at the first instance, with the state where the crime was committed; secondarily, with the ICC in appropriate situations contemplated under Art. 17, par. 155 of the Rome Statute. Of particular note is the application of the principle of ne bis in idem56 under par. 3 of Art. 20, Rome Statute, which again underscores the primacy of the jurisdiction of a state vis-avis that of the ICC. As far as relevant, the provision states that "no person who has been tried by another court for conduct x x x [constituting crimes within its jurisdiction] shall be tried by the [International Criminal] Court with respect to the same conduct x x x." The foregoing provisions of the Rome Statute, taken collectively, argue against the idea of jurisdictional conflict between the Philippines, as party to the non-surrender agreement, and the ICC; or the idea of the Agreement substantially impairing the value of the RPs undertaking under the Rome Statute. Ignoring for a while the fact that the RP signed the Rome Statute ahead of the Agreement, it is abundantly clear to us that the Rome Statute expressly recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states, like the RP, over serious crimes committed within their respective borders, the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC coming into play only when the signatory states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Given the above consideration, petitioners suggestionthat the RP, by entering into the Agreement, violated its duty required by the imperatives of good faith and breached its commitment under the Vienna Convention57 to refrain from performing any act tending to impair the value of a treaty, e.g., the Rome Statutehas to be rejected outright. For nothing in the provisions of the Agreement, in relation to the Rome Statute, tends to diminish the efficacy of the Statute, let alone defeats the purpose of the ICC. Lest it be overlooked, the Rome Statute contains a proviso that enjoins the ICC from seeking the surrender of an erring person, should the process require the requested state to perform

10

an act that would violate some international agreement it has entered into. We refer to Art. 98(2) of the Rome Statute, which reads: Article 98 Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity and consent to surrender xxxx 2. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender. Moreover, under international law, there is a considerable difference between a StateParty and a signatory to a treaty. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory state is only obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty;58 whereas a State-Party, on the other hand, is legally obliged to follow all the provisions of a treaty in good faith. In the instant case, it bears stressing that the Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome Statute and not a State-Party for lack of ratification by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. Any argument obliging the Philippines to follow any provision in the treaty would be premature. As a result, petitioners argument that State-Parties with non-surrender agreements are prevented from meeting their obligations under the Rome Statute, specifically Arts. 27, 86, 89 and 90, must fail. These articles are only legally binding upon State-Parties, not signatories. Furthermore, a careful reading of said Art. 90 would show that the Agreement is not incompatible with the Rome Statute. Specifically, Art. 90(4) provides that "[i]f the requesting State is a State not Party to this Statute the requested State, if it is not under an international obligation to extradite the person to the requesting State, shall give priority to the request for surrender from the Court. x x x" In applying the provision, certain undisputed facts should be pointed out: first, the US is neither a State-Party nor a signatory to the Rome Statute; and second, there is an international agreement between the US and the Philippines regarding extradition or surrender of persons, i.e., the Agreement. Clearly, even assuming that the Philippines is a State-Party, the Rome Statute still recognizes the primacy of international agreements entered into between States, even when one of the States is not a State-Party to the Rome Statute.

Sovereignty Limited by International Agreements Petitioner next argues that the RP has, through the Agreement, abdicated its sovereignty by bargaining away the jurisdiction of the ICC to prosecute US nationals, government officials/employees or military personnel who commit serious crimes of international concerns in the Philippines. Formulating petitioners argument a bit differently, the RP, by entering into the Agreement, does thereby abdicate its sovereignty, abdication being done by its waiving or abandoning its right to seek recourse through the Rome Statute of the ICC for erring Americans committing international crimes in the country. We are not persuaded. As it were, the Agreement is but a form of affirmance and confirmance of the Philippines national criminal jurisdiction. National criminal jurisdiction being primary, as explained above, it is always the responsibility and within the prerogative of the RP either to prosecute criminal offenses equally covered by the Rome Statute or to accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thus, the Philippines may decide to try "persons" of the US, as the term is understood in the Agreement, under our national criminal justice system. Or it may opt not to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over its erring citizens or over US "persons" committing high crimes in the country and defer to the secondary criminal jurisdiction of the ICC over them. As to "persons" of the US whom the Philippines refuses to prosecute, the country would, in effect, accord discretion to the US to exercise either its national criminal jurisdiction over the "person" concerned or to give its consent to the referral of the matter to the ICC for trial. In the same breath, the US must extend the same privilege to the Philippines with respect to "persons" of the RP committing high crimes within US territorial jurisdiction. In the context of the Constitution, there can be no serious objection to the Philippines agreeing to undertake the things set forth in the Agreement. Surely, one State can agree to waive jurisdictionto the extent agreed uponto subjects of another State due to the recognition of the principle of extraterritorial immunity. What the Court wrote in Nicolas v. Romulo59a case involving the implementation of the criminal jurisdiction provisions of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreementis apropos: Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long-recognized subjects of such immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members of the armed forces contingents of a foreign State allowed to enter another States territory. x x x To be sure, the nullity of the subject non-surrender agreement cannot be predicated on the postulate that some of its provisions constitute a virtual abdication of its sovereignty. Almost every time a state enters into an international agreement, it voluntarily sheds off part of its sovereignty. The Constitution, as drafted, did not envision a reclusive Philippines isolated from the rest of the world. It even adheres, as earlier stated, to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.60 By their nature, treaties and international agreements actually have a limiting effect on the otherwise encompassing and absolute nature of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may decide to surrender or waive some aspects of their state power or agree to

11

limit the exercise of their otherwise exclusive and absolute jurisdiction. The usual underlying consideration in this partial surrender may be the greater benefits derived from a pact or a reciprocal undertaking of one contracting party to grant the same privileges or immunities to the other. On the rationale that the Philippines has adopted the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution. 61 Such waiver does not amount to an unconstitutional diminution or deprivation of jurisdiction of Philippine courts. 62 Agreement Not Immoral/Not at Variance with Principles of International Law Petitioner urges that the Agreement be struck down as void ab initio for imposing immoral obligations and/or being at variance with allegedly universally recognized principles of international law. The immoral aspect proceeds from the fact that the Agreement, as petitioner would put it, "leaves criminals immune from responsibility for unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity; x x x it precludes our country from delivering an American criminal to the [ICC] x x x."63 The above argument is a kind of recycling of petitioners earlier position, which, as already discussed, contends that the RP, by entering into the Agreement, virtually abdicated its sovereignty and in the process undermined its treaty obligations under the Rome Statute, contrary to international law principles.64 The Court is not persuaded. Suffice it to state in this regard that the non-surrender agreement, as aptly described by the Solicitor General, "is an assertion by the Philippines of its desire to try and punish crimes under its national law. x x x The agreement is a recognition of the primacy and competence of the countrys judiciary to try offenses under its national criminal laws and dispense justice fairly and judiciously." Petitioner, we believe, labors under the erroneous impression that the Agreement would allow Filipinos and Americans committing high crimes of international concern to escape criminal trial and punishment. This is manifestly incorrect. Persons who may have committed acts penalized under the Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in the Philippines or in the US; or with the consent of the RP or the US, before the ICC, assuming, for the nonce, that all the formalities necessary to bind both countries to the Rome Statute have been met. For perspective, what the Agreement contextually prohibits is the surrender by either party of individuals to international tribunals, like the ICC, without the consent of the other party, which may desire to prosecute the crime under its existing laws. With the view we take of things, there is nothing immoral or violative of international law concepts in the act of the Philippines of assuming criminal jurisdiction pursuant to the non-surrender agreement over an offense considered criminal by both Philippine laws and the Rome Statute. No Grave Abuse of Discretion Petitioners final point revolves around the necessity of the Senates concurrence in the Agreement. And without specifically saying so, petitioner would argue that the non-

surrender agreement was executed by the President, thru the DFA Secretary, in grave abuse of discretion. The Court need not delve on and belabor the first portion of the above posture of petitioner, the same having been discussed at length earlier on. As to the second portion, We wish to state that petitioner virtually faults the President for performing, through respondents, a task conferred the President by the Constitutionthe power to enter into international agreements. By constitutional fiat and by the nature of his or her office, the President, as head of state and government, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country. 65 The Constitution vests in the President the power to enter into international agreements, subject, in appropriate cases, to the required concurrence votes of the Senate. But as earlier indicated, executive agreements may be validly entered into without such concurrence. As the President wields vast powers and influence, her conduct in the external affairs of the nation is, as Bayan would put it, "executive altogether." The right of the President to enter into or ratify binding executive agreements has been confirmed by long practice.66 In thus agreeing to conclude the Agreement thru E/N BFO-028-03, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, represented by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, acted within the scope of the authority and discretion vested in her by the Constitution. At the end of the day, the Presidentby ratifying, thru her deputies, the non-surrender agreementdid nothing more than discharge a constitutional duty and exercise a prerogative that pertains to her office. While the issue of ratification of the Rome Statute is not determinative of the other issues raised herein, it may perhaps be pertinent to remind all and sundry that about the time this petition was interposed, such issue of ratification was laid to rest in Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary.67 As the Court emphasized in said case, the power to ratify a treaty, the Statute in that instance, rests with the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate, whose role relative to the ratification of a treaty is limited merely to concurring in or withholding the ratification. And concomitant with this treaty-making power of the President is his or her prerogative to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate; or having secured the latters consent to the ratification of the treaty, refuse to ratify it. 68 This prerogative, the Court hastened to add, is the Presidents alone and cannot be encroached upon via a writ of mandamus. Barring intervening events, then, the Philippines remains to be just a signatory to the Rome Statute. Under Art. 125 69 thereof, the final acts required to complete the treaty process and, thus, bring it into force, insofar as the Philippines is concerned, have yet to be done. Agreement Need Not Be in the Form of a Treaty On December 11, 2009, then President Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. (RA) 9851, otherwise known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity." Sec. 17 of RA 9851, particularly the second paragraph thereof, provides:

12

Section 17. Jurisdiction. x x x x In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties. (Emphasis supplied.) A view is advanced that the Agreement amends existing municipal laws on the States obligation in relation to grave crimes against the law of nations, i.e., genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Relying on the above-quoted statutory proviso, the view posits that the Philippine is required to surrender to the proper international tribunal those persons accused of the grave crimes defined under RA 9851, if it does not exercise its primary jurisdiction to prosecute them. The basic premise rests on the interpretation that if it does not decide to prosecute a foreign national for violations of RA 9851, the Philippines has only two options, to wit: (1) surrender the accused to the proper international tribunal; or (2) surrender the accused to another State if such surrender is "pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties." But the Philippines may exercise these options only in cases where "another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime;" otherwise, the Philippines must prosecute the crime before its own courts pursuant to RA 9851. Posing the situation of a US national under prosecution by an international tribunal for any crime under RA 9851, the Philippines has the option to surrender such US national to the international tribunal if it decides not to prosecute such US national here. The view asserts that this option of the Philippines under Sec. 17 of RA 9851 is not subject to the consent of the US, and any derogation of Sec. 17 of RA 9851, such as requiring the consent of the US before the Philippines can exercise such option, requires an amendatory law. In line with this scenario, the view strongly argues that the Agreement prevents the Philippines without the consent of the USfrom surrendering to any international tribunal US nationals accused of crimes covered by RA 9851, and, thus, in effect amends Sec. 17 of RA 9851. Consequently, the view is strongly impressed that the Agreement cannot be embodied in a simple executive agreement in the form of an exchange of notes but must be implemented through an extradition law or a treaty with the corresponding formalities. Moreover, consonant with the foregoing view, citing Sec. 2, Art. II of the Constitution, where the Philippines adopts, as a national policy, the "generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land," the Court is further impressed to perceive the Rome Statute as declaratory of customary international law. In other words, the Statute embodies principles of law which constitute customary international law or custom and for which reason it assumes the status of an enforceable domestic law in the context of the aforecited constitutional provision. As a corollary, it is argued that any derogation from the Rome Statute principles cannot be undertaken via a mere executive agreement, which, as an exclusive act of the executive branch, can only implement, but cannot amend

or repeal, an existing law. The Agreement, so the argument goes, seeks to frustrate the objects of the principles of law or alters customary rules embodied in the Rome Statute. Prescinding from the foregoing premises, the view thus advanced considers the Agreement inefficacious, unless it is embodied in a treaty duly ratified with the concurrence of the Senate, the theory being that a Senate- ratified treaty partakes of the nature of a municipal law that can amend or supersede another law, in this instance Sec. 17 of RA 9851 and the status of the Rome Statute as constitutive of enforceable domestic law under Sec. 2, Art. II of the Constitution. We are unable to lend cogency to the view thus taken. For one, we find that the Agreement does not amend or is repugnant to RA 9851. For another, the view does not clearly state what precise principles of law, if any, the Agreement alters. And for a third, it does not demonstrate in the concrete how the Agreement seeks to frustrate the objectives of the principles of law subsumed in the Rome Statute. Far from it, as earlier explained, the Agreement does not undermine the Rome Statute as the former merely reinforces the primacy of the national jurisdiction of the US and the Philippines in prosecuting criminal offenses committed by their respective citizens and military personnel, among others. The jurisdiction of the ICC pursuant to the Rome Statute over high crimes indicated thereat is clearly and unmistakably complementary to the national criminal jurisdiction of the signatory states. Moreover, RA 9851 clearly: (1) defines and establishes the crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide and other crimes against humanity; 70 (2) provides penal sanctions and criminal liability for their commission; 71 and (3) establishes special courts for the prosecution of these crimes and for the State to exercise primary criminal jurisdiction.72 Nowhere in RA 9851 is there a proviso that goes against the tenor of theAgreement. The view makes much of the above quoted second par. of Sec. 17, RA 9851 as requiring the Philippine State to surrender to the proper international tribunal those persons accused of crimes sanctioned under said law if it does not exercise its primary jurisdiction to prosecute such persons. This view is not entirely correct, for the above quoted proviso clearly provides discretion to the Philippine State on whether to surrender or not a person accused of the crimes under RA 9851. The statutory proviso uses the word "may." It is settled doctrine in statutory construction that the word "may" denotes discretion, and cannot be construed as having mandatory effect. 73Thus, the pertinent second pararagraph of Sec. 17, RA 9851 is simply permissive on the part of the Philippine State.
1avvphi1

Besides, even granting that the surrender of a person is mandatorily required when the Philippines does not exercise its primary jurisdiction in cases where "another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime," still, the tenor of the Agreement is not repugnant to Sec. 17 of RA 9851. Said legal proviso aptly provides that the surrender may be made "to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties." The Agreement can already be

13

considered a treaty following this Courts decision in Nicolas v. Romulo 74 which cited Weinberger v. Rossi.75 In Nicolas, We held that "an executive agreement is a treaty within the meaning of that word in international law and constitutes enforceable domestic law vis-vis the United States."76 Likewise, the Philippines and the US already have an existing extradition treaty, i.e., RPUS Extradition Treaty, which was executed on November 13, 1994. The pertinent Philippine law, on the other hand, is Presidential Decree No. 1069, issued on January 13, 1977. Thus, the Agreement, in conjunction with the RP-US Extradition Treaty, would neither violate nor run counter to Sec. 17 of RA 9851. The views reliance on Suplico v. Neda 77 is similarly improper. In that case, several petitions were filed questioning the power of the President to enter into foreign loan agreements. However, before the petitions could be resolved by the Court, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion averring that the Philippine Government decided not to continue with the ZTE National Broadband Network Project, thus rendering the petition moot. In resolving the case, the Court took judicial notice of the act of the executive department of the Philippines (the President) and found the petition to be indeed moot. Accordingly, it dismissed the petitions. In his dissent in the abovementioned case, Justice Carpio discussed the legal implications of an executive agreement. He stated that "an executive agreement has the force and effect of law x x x [it] cannot amend or repeal prior laws." 78 Hence, this argument finds no application in this case seeing as RA 9851 is a subsequent law, not a prior one. Notably, this argument cannot be found in the ratio decidendi of the case, but only in the dissenting opinion. The view further contends that the RP-US Extradition Treaty is inapplicable to RA 9851 for the reason that under par. 1, Art. 2 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, "[a]n offense shall be an extraditable offense if it is punishable under the laws in both Contracting Parties x x x,"79 and thereby concluding that while the Philippines has criminalized under RA 9851 the acts defined in the Rome Statute as war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity, there is no similar legislation in the US. It is further argued that, citing U.S. v. Coolidge, in the US, a person cannot be tried in the federal courts for an international crime unless Congress adopts a law defining and punishing the offense. This view must fail. On the contrary, the US has already enacted legislation punishing the high crimes mentioned earlier. In fact, as early as October 2006, the US enacted a law criminalizing war crimes. Section 2441, Chapter 118, Part I, Title 18 of the United States Code Annotated (USCA) provides for the criminal offense of "war crimes" which is similar to the war crimes found in both the Rome Statute and RA 9851, thus: (a) Offense Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be

fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) Circumstances The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). (c) Definition As used in this Section the term "war crime" means any conduct (1) Defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) Prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27 or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) Which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection [d]) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or (4) Of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.80
1avvphi1

Similarly, in December 2009, the US adopted a law that criminalized genocide, to wit: 1091. Genocide (a) Basic Offense Whoever, whether in the time of peace or in time of war and with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such (1) kills members of that group; (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group; (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

14

(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part; (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).81 Arguing further, another view has been advanced that the current US laws do not cover every crime listed within the jurisdiction of the ICC and that there is a gap between the definitions of the different crimes under the US laws versus the Rome Statute. The view used a report written by Victoria K. Holt and Elisabeth W. Dallas, entitled "On Trial: The US Military and the International Criminal Court," as its basis. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the report used may not have any weight or value under international law. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) lists the sources of international law, as follows: (1) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; (2) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (3) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and (4) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. The report does not fall under any of the foregoing enumerated sources. It cannot even be considered as the "teachings of highly qualified publicists." A highly qualified publicist is a scholar of public international law and the term usually refers to legal scholars or "academic writers."82 It has not been shown that the authors 83 of this report are highly qualified publicists. Assuming arguendo that the report has weight, still, the perceived gaps in the definitions of the crimes are nonexistent. To highlight, the table below shows the definitions of genocide and war crimes under the Rome Statute vis--vis the definitions under US laws: Rome Statute Article 6 Genocide For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 1091. Genocide (a) Basic Offense Whoever, whether in the time of peace or in time of war and with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such (1) kills members of that US Law

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

group; (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group; (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques; (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part; (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Article 8 War Crimes 2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of

(d) Definition As used in this Section the term "war crime" means any conduct (1) Defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) Prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27 or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed

15

the relevant Geneva Convention: x x x84 (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: xxxx (c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause: xxxx (d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not

18 October 1907; (3) Which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection [d]85) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or (4) Of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.86

apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. (e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: x x x. Evidently, the gaps pointed out as to the definition of the crimes are not present. In fact, the report itself stated as much, to wit: Few believed there were wide differences between the crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court and crimes within the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would expose US personnel to the Court. Since US military lawyers were instrumental in drafting the elements of crimes outlined in the Rome Statute, they ensured that most of the crimes were consistent with those outlined in the UCMJ and gave strength to complementarity for the US. Small areas of potential gaps between the UCMJ and the Rome Statute, military experts argued, could be addressed through existing military laws.87 x x x The report went on further to say that "[a]ccording to those involved, the elements of crimes laid out in the Rome Statute have been part of US military doctrine for decades."88 Thus, the argument proffered cannot stand. Nonetheless, despite the lack of actual domestic legislation, the US notably follows the doctrine of incorporation. As early as 1900, the esteemed Justice Gray in The Paquete Habana89 case already held international law as part of the law of the US, to wit: International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made

16

themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for the trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.90(Emphasis supplied.) Thus, a person can be tried in the US for an international crime despite the lack of domestic legislation. The cited ruling in U.S. v. Coolidge, 91 which in turn is based on the holding in U.S. v. Hudson,92 only applies to common law and not to the law of nations or international law.93 Indeed, the Court in U.S. v. Hudson only considered the question, "whether the Circuit Courts of the United States can exercise a common law jurisdiction in criminal cases."94 Stated otherwise, there is no common law crime in the US but this is considerably different from international law. The US doubtless recognizes international law as part of the law of the land, necessarily including international crimes, even without any local statute. 95 In fact, years later, US courts would apply international law as a source of criminal liability despite the lack of a local statute criminalizing it as such. So it was that in Ex Parte Quirin 96 the US Supreme Court noted that "[f]rom the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals."97 It went on further to explain that Congress had not undertaken the task of codifying the specific offenses covered in the law of war, thus: It is no objection that Congress in providing for the trial of such offenses has not itself undertaken to codify that branch of international law or to mark its precise boundaries, or to enumerate or define by statute all the acts which that law condemns. An Act of Congress punishing the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations is an appropriate exercise of its constitutional authority, Art. I, s 8, cl. 10, to define and punish the offense since it has adopted by reference the sufficiently precise definition of international law. x x x Similarly by the reference in the 15th Article of War to offenders or offenses that x x x by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions. Congress has incorporated by reference, as within the jurisdiction of military commissions, all offenses which are defined as such by the law of war x x x, and which may constitutionally be included within that jurisdiction.98 x x x (Emphasis supplied.) This rule finds an even stronger hold in the case of crimes against humanity. It has been held that genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity have attained the status of customary international law. Some even go so far as to state that these crimes have attained the status of jus cogens.99 Customary international law or international custom is a source of international law as stated in the Statute of the ICJ.100 It is defined as the "general and consistent practice of states recognized and followed by them from a sense of legal obligation." 101 In order to establish the customary status of a particular norm, two elements must concur: State practice, the objective element; and opinio juris sive necessitates, the subjective element.102

State practice refers to the continuous repetition of the same or similar kind of acts or norms by States.103 It is demonstrated upon the existence of the following elements: (1) generality; (2) uniformity and consistency; and (3) duration. 104 While, opinio juris, the psychological element, requires that the state practice or norm "be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it."105 "The term jus cogens means the compelling law." 106 Corollary, "a jus cogens norm holds the highest hierarchical position among all other customary norms and principles." 107 As a result, jus cogens norms are deemed "peremptory and non-derogable." 108 When applied to international crimes, "jus cogens crimes have been deemed so fundamental to the existence of a just international legal order that states cannot derogate from them, even by agreement."109 These jus cogens crimes relate to the principle of universal jurisdiction, i.e., "any state may exercise jurisdiction over an individual who commits certain heinous and widely condemned offenses, even when no other recognized basis for jurisdiction exists." 110 "The rationale behind this principle is that the crime committed is so egregious that it is considered to be committed against all members of the international community" 111 and thus granting every State jurisdiction over the crime.112 Therefore, even with the current lack of domestic legislation on the part of the US, it still has both the doctrine of incorporation and universal jurisdiction to try these crimes. Consequently, no matter how hard one insists, the ICC, as an international tribunal, found in the Rome Statute is not declaratory of customary international law. The first element of customary international law, i.e., "established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States," 113 does not, under the premises, appear to be obtaining as reflected in this simple reality: As of October 12, 2010, only 114 114 States have ratified the Rome Statute, subsequent to its coming into force eight (8) years earlier, or on July 1, 2002. The fact that 114 States out of a total of 194 115 countries in the world, or roughly 58.76%, have ratified the Rome Statute casts doubt on whether or not the perceived principles contained in the Statute have attained the status of customary law and should be deemed as obligatory international law. The numbers even tend to argue against the urgency of establishing international criminal courts envisioned in the Rome Statute. Lest it be overlooked, the Philippines, judging by the action or inaction of its top officials, does not even feel bound by the Rome Statute. Res ipsa loquitur. More than eight (8) years have elapsed since the Philippine representative signed the Statute, but the treaty has not been transmitted to the Senate for the ratification process. And this brings us to what Fr. Bernas, S.J. aptly said respecting the application of the concurring elements, thus: Custom or customary international law means "a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation [opinio juris] x x x." This statement contains the two basic elements of custom: the material factor, that is how the states 17

behave, and the psychological factor or subjective factor, that is, why they behave the way they do. xxxx The initial factor for determining the existence of custom is the actual behavior of states. This includes several elements: duration, consistency, and generality of the practice of states. The required duration can be either short or long. x x x xxxx Duration therefore is not the most important element. More important is the consistency and the generality of the practice. x x x xxxx Once the existence of state practice has been established, it becomes necessary to determine why states behave the way they do . Do states behave the way they do because they consider it obligatory to behave thus or do they do it only as a matter of courtesy? Opinio juris, or the belief that a certain form of behavior is obligatory, is what makes practice an international rule. Without it, practice is not law.116 (Emphasis added.) Evidently, there is, as yet, no overwhelming consensus, let alone prevalent practice, among the different countries in the world that the prosecution of internationally recognized crimes of genocide, etc. should be handled by a particular international criminal court. Absent the widespread/consistent-practice-of-states factor, the second or the psychological element must be deemed non-existent, for an inquiry on why states behave the way they do presupposes, in the first place, that they are actually behaving, as a matter of settled and consistent practice, in a certain manner. This implicitly requires belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.117Like the first element, the second element has likewise not been shown to be present. Further, the Rome Statute itself rejects the concept of universal jurisdiction over the crimes enumerated therein as evidenced by it requiring State consent. 118 Even further, the Rome Statute specifically and unequivocally requires that: "This Statute is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States." 119 These clearly negate the argument that such has already attained customary status. More importantly, an act of the executive branch with a foreign government must be afforded great respect. The power to enter into executive agreements has long been

recognized to be lodged with the President. As We held in Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, "[t]he power to enter into an executive agreement is in essence an executive power. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence."120 The rationale behind this principle is the inviolable doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government. Thus, absent any clear contravention of the law, courts should exercise utmost caution in declaring any executive agreement invalid. In light of the above consideration, the position or view that the challenged RP-US NonSurrender Agreement ought to be in the form of a treaty, to be effective, has to be rejected. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs. SO ORDERED.

18

succeed him as Punong Barangay with Herato garnering the highest number of votes as a Barangay Kagawad. Mendoza appealed the MTC Decision to the COMELEC. On February 28, 2008, Villas administered the Oath of Office to Herato. 5 Then, Villas issued Memorandum No. 2008-03-010 dated March 3, 2008,6 directing all department heads of the Municipal Government to act only on documents signed or authorized by Herato. Meanwhile, Mendoza sought the advice of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) as to who should exercise the powers of Punong Barangay of Balatasan given the prevailing controversy. In a letter dated April 11, 2008,7 DILG Undersecretary Austere A. Panadero responded to Mendozas inquiry informing Villas that Mendoza should occupy the post of Punong Barangay as there was no Writ of Execution Pending Appeal of the MTC Decision dated February 23, 2008. Nevertheless, the Bulalacao Municipal Administrator, Edezer Aceron, by the authority of Villas, issued a letter dated April 23, 2008 8 to respondent Marlon de Castro, Manager, Pinamalayan Branch, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), requesting that transactions entered into by Mendoza in behalf of Barangay Bulalacao should not be honored. In the same letter, Aceron dismissed the DILG letter dated April 11, 2008, saying that it is merely advisory and not binding on the municipal government of Bulalacao and the LBP. In response, de Castro issued Villas and Mendoza a letter dated April 24, 2008, 9 advising both parties that the LBP shall not honor any transaction with regard the accounts of Barangay Balatasan. Thereafter, petitioners filed a Petition dated May 5, 2008 for Mandamus with Damages and Prayer for the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 08-10 pending with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43 in Roxas, Oriental Mindoro. Petitioners prayed that the LBP be directed to release the funds of Barangay Balatasan to them in order to render necessary, basic public services to the inhabitants of the barangay. Thus, Villas and Herato filed an Answer dated May 16, 2008 interposing the following affirmative defenses: (1) that the petition for mandamus was defective, being directed against two or more different entities and requiring to perform different acts; and (2) that Mendoza does not have any clear and legal right for the writ of mandamus. On the other hand, the LBP also filed its Answer dated June 5, 2008, stating that its decision of withholding the barangay funds was a mere act of prudence given the controversy surrounding the true Punong Barangay of Balatasan while manifesting that it will release the funds to whom the Court directs it to.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 187256 February 23, 2011

CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA and SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BALATASAN, BULALACAO, ORIENTAL MINDORO, Petitioners, vs. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS and BRGY. KAGAWAD LIWANAG HERATO and MARLON DE CASTRO, Manager, Pinamalayan Branch, Land Bank of the Philippines, Respondents. RESOLUTION VELASCO, JR., J.: Before this Court is a Petition dated April 7, 2009 1 filed by Constancio F. Mendoza and Sangguniang Barangay of Balatasan, Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. In the Petition, it is prayed that the Court: (1) set aside the Order dated February 2, 2009 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43 in Roxas, Oriental Mindoro and its Order dated March 17, 20093 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration of the Order dated February 2, 2009; and (2) direct the RTC to continue with the proceedings in Special Civil Action No. 08-10 entitled Constancio Mendoza v. Mayor Enrilo Villas. The factual antecedents of the case are as follows: In the 2007 barangay elections, Mendoza obtained the highest votes for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Balatasan, Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, while respondent Liwanag Herato obtained the highest number of votes for the position of Barangay Kagawad. Notably, Mayor Enrilo Villas was the incumbent Mayor of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro at the time of the barangay elections.4 After the elections, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) proclaimed Mendoza as the duly-elected Punong Barangay of Balatasan. Thus, the losing candidate, Thomas Pajanel, filed a petition for quo warranto with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of MansalayBulalacao which was docketed as Election Case No. 407-B. The MTC issued a Decision dated February 23, 2008, disqualifying Mendoza and declaring that Herato was entitled to

19

Thereafter, Villas and Herato filed a Motion to Dismiss dated November 7, 2008. In the Motion, a copy of the COMELEC Resolution dated September 8, 2008 in COMELEC Case No. SPA-07-243-BRGY was attached. This case originated from a disqualification case against Mendoza filed with the COMELEC by Senen Familara before the conduct of the 2007 barangay elections. In the Resolution, the COMELEC disqualified Mendoza as a candidate for Punong Barangay of Barangay Balatasan in the 2007 barangay elections for having already served three (3) consecutive terms for the same position. In response, Mendoza presented a Certification dated February 27, 200910 from the COMELEC which stated that COMELEC Case No. SPA-07-243-BRGY is still pending with the Commission. In an attempt to clarify the issues on the matter, Mendoza again sought the opinion of the DILG regarding the controversy. Thus, the DILG issued another letter, denominated as DILG Opinion No. 5, Series of 2009 dated January 2009, 11 reiterating its stance that the MTC Decision dated February 23, 2008 has not yet become final and executory. Nevertheless, the RTC issued the assailed order dated February 2, 2009 dismissing the petition on the strength of the COMELEC Resolution dated September 8, 2008 disqualifying Mendoza from running in the 2007 elections. As stated, petitioners motion for reconsideration of the Order dated February 2, 2009 was denied in an Order dated March 17, 2009. From such orders the petitioners went directly to this Court. The instant petition is a direct recourse to this Court from the assailed orders of the RTC. Notably, petitioners did not cite the rule under the Rules of Court by which the petition was filed. If the petition is to be treated as a petition filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petition must be dismissed outright for having been filed prematurely. In Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,12 a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 was dismissed for having been filed directly with the Court, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts, to wit: Primarily, although this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. In Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, citing People v. Cuaresma, this Court made the following pronouncements: This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter,

with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Courts docket. (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, there are no special and important reasons that petitioners cite to justify their direct recourse to this Court under Rule 65. On the other hand, direct recourse to this Court has been allowed for petitions filed under Rule 45 when only questions of law are raised, as in this case. Thus, the Court ruled in Barcenas v. Tomas:13 Section 1 of Rule 45 clearly states that the following may be appealed to the Supreme Court through a petition for review by certiorari: 1) judgments; 2) final orders; or 3) resolutions of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or similar courts, whenever authorized by law. The appeal must involve only questions of law, not of fact. This Court has, time and time again, pointed out that it is not a trier of facts; and that, save for a few exceptional instances, its function is not to analyze or weigh all over again the factual findings of the lower courts. There is a question of law when doubts or differences arise as to what law pertains to a certain state of facts, and a question of fact when the doubt pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. Under the principle of the hierarchy of courts, decisions, final orders or resolutions of an MTC should be appealed to the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the former. On the other hand, RTC judgments, final orders or resolutions are appealable to the CA through either of the following: an ordinary appeal if the case was originally decided by the RTC; or a petition for review under Rule 42, if the case was decided under the RTC's appellate jurisdiction. Nonetheless, a direct recourse to this Court can be taken for a review of the decisions, final orders or resolutions of the RTC, but only on questions of law. Under Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: xxxx (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

20

This kind of direct appeal to this Court of RTC judgments, final orders or resolutions is provided for in Section 2(c) of Rule 41, which reads: SEC. 2. Modes of appeal. xxxx (c) Appeal by certiorari.In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. Procedurally then, petitioners could have appealed the RTC Decision affirming the MTC (1) to this Court on questions of law only; or (2) if there are factual questions involved, to the CA -- as they in fact did. Unfortunately for petitioners, the CA properly dismissed their petition for review because of serious procedural defects. This action foreclosed their only available avenue for the review of the factual findings of the RTC. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the Court shall exercise liberality and consider the instant petition as one filed under Rule 45. In Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowners Association, Inc.,14 citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,15 the Court noted that it has the discretion to determine whether a petition was filed under Rule 45 or 65 of the Rules of Court: Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.
lawphi1

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Nevertheless, even providing that the petition was not filed prematurely, it must still be dismissed for having become moot and academic. In Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The Commission on Elections, 16 the Court defined a moot and academic case as follows: A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness. With the conduct of the 2010 barangay elections, a supervening event has transpired that has rendered this case moot and academic and subject to dismissal. This is because, as stated in Fernandez v. Commission on Elections, 17 "whatever judgment is reached, the same can no longer have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, can no longer be enforced." Mendozas term of office has expired with the conduct of last years local elections. As such, Special Civil Action No. 08-10, where the assailed Orders were issued, can no longer prosper. Mendoza no longer has any legal standing to further pursue the case, rendering the instant petition moot and academic.

21

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 142676 June 6, 2011

In G.R. No. 146718, Muoz is praying for the reversal, setting aside, and nullification of the Decision5 dated September 29, 2000 and Resolution6 dated January 5, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40019, which affirmed the Orders 7 dated August 21, 1995 and October 3, 1995 of the Quezon City RTC, Branch 95 (RTC-Branch 95) in Civil Case No. Q-28580 denying Muozs Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of the Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297 8 against respondents Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and the spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan (spouses Chan). I FACTS The subject property is a house and lot at No. 48 Scout Madrian St., Diliman, Quezon City, formerly owned by Yee L. Ching. Yee L. Ching is married to Emilia M. Ching (spouses Ching), Muozs sister. Muoz lived at the subject property with the spouses Ching. As consideration for the valuable services rendered by Muoz to the spouses Chings family, Yee L. Ching agreed to have the subject property transferred to Muoz. By virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, seemingly executed by Yee L. Ching in favor of Muoz,9 the latter acquired a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 186306 covering the subject property in her name on December 22, 1972. 10However, in a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1972, Muoz purportedly sold the subject property to her sister, Emilia M. Ching. As a result, TCT No. 186306 was cancelled and TCT No. 186366 was issued in Emilia M. Chings name. Emilia M. Ching, in a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 1979, sold the subject property to spouses Go Song and Tan Sio Kien (spouses Go), hence, TCT No. 186366 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Gos names. On October 15, 1979, Muoz registered her adverse claim to the subject property on TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go. The next day, on October 16, 1979, Muoz filed a complaint for the annulment of the deeds of absolute sale dated December 28, 1972 and July 16, 1979, the cancellation of TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Gos names, and the restoration and revival of TCT No. 186306 in Muozs name. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-28580 and raffled to RTC-Branch 95. On October 17, 1979, Muoz caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go. In an Order dated December 17, 1979, the RTC-Branch 95 granted the spouses Gos motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and ordered the sheriff to put the spouses Go in possession of the subject property. The writ was implemented by the sheriff on March 26, 1980, driving Muoz and her housemates away from the subject property. Muoz filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals, assailing the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, which was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 10148. The appellate court dismissed Muozs petition on January 4, 1980. Yee L. Ching and his son Frederick M. Ching filed an urgent motion for leave to intervene in CA-G.R. SP No. 10148 and for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court of Appeals issued a TRO. However, in a Resolution dated March 18, 1980, the appellate court denied the motion to intervene of Yee L. Ching and Frederick M. Ching, and cancelled the TRO previously issued. Yee L. Ching and Frederick M. Ching

EMERITA MUOZ, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR. and SAMUEL GO CHAN, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 146718 EMERITA MUOZ, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES SAMUEL GO CHAN and AIDA C. CHAN, and THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,Respondents. DECISION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Before Us are the following consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In G.R. No. 142676, Emerita Muoz (Muoz) is seeking the reversal, annulment, and setting aside of the Decision 1dated July 21, 1995 and Resolution 2 dated March 9, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 35322, which affirmed the Orders 3 dated June 10, 1994 and August 5, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 (RTC-Branch 88) of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632. The RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 8286, the forcible entry case instituted by Muoz against Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. (Atty. Yabut) and Samuel Go Chan before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 33 of Quezon City; and nullified the MeTC Order4 dated May 16, 1994, granting Muozs prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which restored possession of the subject property to Muoz.

22

challenged before this Court, in G.R. No. 53463, the Resolution dated March 18, 1980 of the Court of Appeals. Eventually, in a Resolution dated June 3, 1981, the Court dismissed the petition in G.R. No. 53463, for lack of merit and failure of Yee L. Ching and Frederick M. Ching to substantially show that the RTC-Branch 95 and the Court of Appeals gravely abused their discretion. In a subsequent Resolution dated June 21, 1982, the Court clarified that its Resolution of June 3, 1981 was without prejudice to the continuation of the litigation in Civil Case No. Q-28580 still pending before the trial court, "in order that proper and final adjudication may be made of whether or not the deed of sale by Emerita L. Muoz in favor of Emilia M. Ching is a real, genuine and authentic transaction, thereby to settle once and for all the issue of ownership of the property herein in question."11 Trial in Civil Case No. Q-28580 proceeded before RTC-Branch 95. In the meantime, Muozs adverse claim and notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 258977 was cancelled on October 28, 1982 on the basis of an alleged final judgment in favor of the spouses Go.12 The spouses Go obtained a loan of P500,000.00 from BPI Family Savings Bank (BPI Family) and to secure the same, they constituted a mortgage on the subject property on November 23, 1982.13 When the spouses Go defaulted on the payment of their loan, BPI Family foreclosed the mortgage. BPI Family was the highest bidder at the auction sale of the subject property. The spouses Go failed to exercise their right of redemption within the prescribed period, thus, BPI Family was finally able to register the subject property in its name on October 23, 1987 under TCT No. 370364.14 Apparently, the original copy of TCT No. 370364 was among those razed in the fire at the Quezon City Register of Deeds on June 11, 1988. As a result of the administrative reconstitution of the lost title, TCT No. RT-54376 (370364) was issued to BPI Family. On December 3, 1990, BPI Family executed in favor of the spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan (spouses Chan) a Deed of Absolute Sale 15 covering the subject property for and in consideration ofP3,350,000.00. Consequently, TCT No. RT54376 (370364) in the name of BPI Family was cancelled and TCT No. 53297 was issued in the spouses Chans names on January 28, 1991. 16 The spouses Chan obtained a loan from BPI Family on October 2, 1992 for the construction of a building on the subject property, and to secure the same, constituted a mortgage on the subject property in favor of BPI Family.17 On July 19, 1991, RTC-Branch 95 rendered its Decision 18 in Civil Case No. Q-28580, against Emilia M. Ching, Yee L. Ching, and the spouses Go (Emilia M. Ching, et al.). It found that Muozs signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1972 was forged; that Muoz never sold the subject property to her sister, Emilia M. Ching; and that the spouses Go were not innocent purchasers for value of the subject property. The fallo of the said decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing for lack of merit [Emilia M. Ching, et al.s] respective counterclaims, cross-claims, and counter-cross-claim, declaring as null and void ab initio the following documents, to wit: (a) Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 28, 1972, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. M; (b) TCT No. 186366 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. N; (c) Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 1979, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. 3; and, (d) TCT No. 258977 of the Registry of Deeds for Metro Manila District III,

copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. 4, and directing defendant Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel from the records of the subject property the registrations of all the said documents and to restore and revive, free from all liens and encumbrances, TCT No. 186306 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, copy of which is marked in evidence as Exh. L, as well as ordering defendants Emilia M. Ching, Go Song and Tan Sio Kien jointly and severally to pay [Muoz] the sum ofP50,000.00 as and for attorneys fees and to pay the costs of suit. The court also hereby dismisses the rest of the claims in [Muozs] complaint, there being no satisfactory warrant therefor.19 Emilia M. Ching, et al.s, appeal of the foregoing judgment of the RTC-Branch 95 was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 33811 before the Court of Appeals. In its Decision 20 dated March 4, 1993, the appellate court not only affirmed the appealed judgment, but also ordered the spouses Go and their successors-in-interest and assigns and those acting on their behalf to vacate the subject property, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs against [Emilia M. Ching, et al.]. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued on December 17, 1979 is hereby set aside and declared dissolved. Defendants-appellants Go and Tan, their successors-in-interest and assigns and those acting on their behalf, are ordered to vacate the disputed premises and to deliver the same to [Muoz] immediately upon receipt of this decision.21 Emilia L. Ching, et al., filed before this Court a motion for extension of time to file their petition for review, which was assigned the docket number G.R. No. 109260. However, they failed to file their intended petition within the extended period which expired on April 23, 1993. In a Resolution 22 dated July 12, 1993, the Court declared G.R. No. 109260 terminated. The Resolution dated July 12, 1993 of the Court in G.R. No. 109260 became final and executory on July 15, 1993 and was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments on even date.23 More than two months later, on September 20, 1993, the RTC-Branch 95 issued a writ of execution to implement the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580. The spouses Chan, who bought the subject property from BPI Family, then came forward and filed before the RTC-Branch 95 on October 22, 1993 an Urgent Motion to Stop Execution as Against Spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida Chan,24 opposing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. Q-28580. The spouses Chan asserted ownership and possession of the subject property on the basis of a clean title registered in their names under TCT No. 53297. The spouses Chan further contended that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 could not be executed against them since they were not parties to the said case; they were not successors-in-interest, assigns, or acting on behalf of the spouses Go; and they purchased the subject property from BPI Family without any notice of defect in the latters title. It was only at this point that Muoz, upon her own inquiry, discovered the cancellation on October 28, 1982 of her adverse claim and notice of lis pendens annotated on the spouses Gos TCT No. 258977, and the subsequent events that led to the transfer and

23

registration of the title to the subject property from the spouses Go, to BPI Family, and finally, to the spouses Chan. In its Order25 dated December 28, 1993, the RTC-Branch 95 denied the spouses Chans urgent motion to stop the execution. According to the RTC-Branch 95, the photocopy of TCT No. 370364 in the name of BPI Family, submitted by the spouses Chan with their motion, could hardly be regarded as satisfactory proof that Muozs adverse claim and notice of lis pendens annotated therein were also missing from the original copy of said certificate of title. Muozs adverse claim and notice of lis pendens were annotated on TCT No. 258977 in the spouses Gos names as P.E.-8078 and P.E.-8178, respectively. So when TCT No. 258977 of the spouses Go was cancelled and TCT No. 370364 was issued to BPI Family, it could be presumed that the Register of Deeds regularly performed his official duty by carrying over Muozs adverse claim and notice of lis pendens to TCT No. 370364. In addition, the RTC-Branch 95 pointed out that in this jurisdiction, the entry of the notice of lis pendens in the day book of the Register of Deeds was already sufficient notice to the whole world of the dispute over the subject property, and there was no more need to annotate the same on the owners duplicate of the certificate of title. Finally, the RTC-Branch 95 held that TCT No. RT-54376 (370364) of BPI Family and TCT No. 53297 of the spouses Chan shall be subject to the reservation under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 2626 "[t]hat certificates of title reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in sections five and six hereof, shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title." Thus, the spouses Chan were deemed to have taken the disputed property subject to the final outcome of Civil Case No. Q-28580. On January 3, 1994, the RTC-Branch 95 issued an Alias Writ of Execution. 27 On January 10, 1994, the writ was enforced, and possession of the subject property was taken from the spouses Chan and returned to Muoz.28 In its Orders dated April 8, 1994 and June 17, 1994, the RTC-Branch 95 denied the spouses Chans motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal, respectively.29 G.R. No. 142676 Pending resolution by the RTC-Branch 95 of the spouses Chans motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal in Civil Case No. Q-28580, Muoz instituted before the MeTC on February 4, 1994 a Complaint for Forcible Entry with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction30 against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, docketed as Civil Case No. 8286. Muoz alleged in her complaint that she had been in actual and physical possession of the subject property since January 10, 1994. She hired a caretaker and two security guards for the said property. On February 2, 1994, Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, along with 20 other men, some of whom were armed, ousted Muoz of possession of the subject property by stealth, threat, force, and intimidation. Muoz prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut and all persons claiming right under them to vacate the subject property. Muoz additionally prayed for judgment making the mandatory injunction permanent and directing Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut to pay Muoz: (1) compensation for the unlawful occupation of the subject property in the amount of P50,000.00 per month, beginning

February 2, 1994 until the said property is fully and completely turned over to Muoz; (2) attorneys fees in the amount ofP50,000.00, plus P1,500.00 per court appearance of Muozs counsel; and (3) costs of suit. Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut denied Muozs allegations, insisting that Samuel Go Chan is the valid, lawful, and true legal owner and possessor of the subject property. Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut averred that the Turn-Over of Possession and Receipt of Possession dated January 10, 1994 attached to Muozs complaint as proof that the subject property had been placed in her possession is a falsified document. The Writ of Execution issued on September 20, 1993 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 had already expired and the Sheriffs Return on the Writ another document purporting to show that possession of the subject property was turned-over to Muoz on January 10, 1994 was then being challenged in a complaint before the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez of the Supreme Court. Samuel Go Chans possession of the subject property has never been interrupted. His sister, Cely Chan, resided at the subject property and was never removed therefrom. On February 2, 1994, Atty. Yabut was at the subject property only to protect the rights and interest of his client, Samuel Go Chan, and since the latters possession of the subject property had never been interrupted, Atty. Yabut entered the same peacefully, without intimidation, force, or stealth. The other people at the subject property on February 2, 1994 were there to attend the services at the Buddhist Temple which occupied the fourth floor of the building erected by the spouses Chan on the subject property. Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, thus, asked the MeTC to dismiss Muozs complaint for lack of merit and legal basis.31 The MeTC received evidence from the parties on whether a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued, as prayed for by Muoz. In its Order dated May 16, 1994, the MeTC adjudged that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was already executed against the spouses Chan and there was, indeed, a turn-over of possession of the subject property to Muoz. Accordingly, the MeTC granted Muozs prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, restoring possession of the subject property to Muoz. Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut questioned the foregoing MeTC order through a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction32 before the RTC-Branch 88, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-9420632. They asserted that they were not bound by the execution of the final judgment of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 as they were not parties to the said case. Muoz, on the other hand, argued that the MeTC Order of May 16, 1994 was an interlocutory order, and under Section 19 of the Rules of Summary Procedure, a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order issued by the court is one of the prohibited pleadings and motions in summary proceedings. In its Order dated June 10, 1994, the RTC-Branch 88 issued a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994. On August 5, 1994, the RTC-Branch 88 issued another Order resolving Muozs motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632, motion for reconsideration of the Order dated June 10, 1994 of RTC-Branch 88 granting the issuance of a writ of 24

preliminary injunction, and motion to resolve with additional grounds for dismissal. According to the RTC-Branch 88, the MeTC failed to distinguish the issue of finality of the judgment of the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 from the assertions of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut that the spouses Chan are not covered by said final judgment because they are not successors-in-interest, assigns, or privies of the spouses Go and they are purchasers of the subject property in good faith. The issue of whether the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 extended to the spouses Chan was then still being litigated in the same case before RTC-Branch 95, where the spouses Chans motion for reconsideration of the denial of their notice of appeal was pending. The RTC-Branch 88 further found that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing Muozs complaint for forcible entry on the ground of "lis pendens," as the issue as to who between Muoz and the spouses Chan had the better right to possession of the subject property was the subject of the pending proceeding in Civil Case No. Q-28580 before the RTC-Branch 95. In the end, the RTC-Branch 88 decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment (a) Denying the motion to dismiss of respondent Muoz for lack of merit; (b) Denying the motion for reconsideration of respondent Muoz for the recall and/or setting aside of the writ of preliminary injunction granted to petitioners; (c) Declaring the Order dated May 16, 1994 of Public respondent Hon. Elsa de Guzman in Civil Case No. 8286 illegal and therefore null and void; and (d) Dismissing the ejectment suit in Civil Case No. 8286 on ground of lis pendens. Without pronouncement as to costs.33 Muoz appealed the Orders dated June 10, 1994 and August 5, 1994 of RTC-Branch 88 before the Court of Appeals. Her appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 35322. Aside from the nullification of the two orders, Muoz additionally prayed for the dismissal from the service of the RTC-Branch 88 presiding judge and the disbarment of Atty. Yabut. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated July 21, 1995, sustained the appealed orders of RTC-Branch 88. The Court of Appeals held that the MeTC should have dismissed the forcible entry case on the ground of "lis pendens"; that the spouses Chan were not parties in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and impleading them only in the execution stage of said case vitiated their right to due process; that the order of the RTC-Branch 95 involving the spouses Chan in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was null and void, considering that they are strangers to the case, and they are innocent purchasers for value of the subject property; that the notice of lis pendens was already cancelled from the spouses Gos certificate of title at the time they mortgaged the subject property to BPI Family; and that the title to the subject property was already free of any and all liens and encumbrances when the

spouses Chan purchased the said property from BPI Family. The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated March 9, 2000, denied Muozs motion for reconsideration.

G.R. No. 146718 Meanwhile, Muoz filed before the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 a Motion to Cite the Register of Deeds in Contempt of Court for the failure of the Register of Deeds to restore Muozs TCT No. 186306 despite having been served with a copy of the writ of execution on October 11, 1993. In its Judgment (on the Contempt Proceedings against the Register of Deeds of Quezon City Samuel C. Cleofe) 34 dated March 18, 1994, the RTCBranch 95 denied Muozs motion, convinced that the Register of Deeds had a valid excuse for his inability to implement the served writ. The Register of Deeds could not cancel the spouses Chans TCT No. 53297, the subsisting certificate of title over the subject property, absent any authority or directive for him to do so. The directive in the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 and the writ of execution for the same only pertained to the cancellation of the spouses Gos TCT No. 258977. Thereafter, Muoz filed a Motion for Contempt against the spouses Chan and a Second Motion for Contempt against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut. Muoz also filed a Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of the Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297,35 in which she prayed for the issuance of an alias writ of execution directing the Register of Deeds not only to cancel TCT No. 258977 and all documents declared null and void ab initio in the dispositive portion of the Decision 36 dated July 19, 1991 of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and to restore and revive, free from all liens and encumbrances Muozs TCT No. 186306, but likewise to cancel the present certificate of title covering the subject property, TCT No. 53297. In its Order dated August 21, 1995, the RTC-Branch 95 denied all of Muozs aforementioned motions. The RTC-Branch 95 was of the view that Samuel Go Chans title should be litigated in another forum, not in Civil Case No. Q-28580 where the judgment had already become final and executory. The RTC-Branch 95 also stressed that since the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 had long become final and executory, it could no longer be changed or amended except for clerical error or mistake. Accordingly, the RTCBranch 95 resolved as follows: 1. Ordering, as it hereby orders, the denial of [Muozs] first and second motions for contempt and hereby absolves respondents Samuel Go Chan, Celia Chan, Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr., and several John Does of the Contempt Charges against them. 2. Ordering, as it hereby orders, the issuance of an alias writ of execution directing the Courts Deputy Sheriff:

25

(a) Defendants Go Song and Tan Sio Kien, their successors-ininterest and assigns and those acting on their behalf to vacate the disputed premises and deliver the same to [Muoz]; (b) Defendant Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel from the records of the subject property the registration of all the following documents, to wit: (1) "Deed of Absolute Sale" dated December 28, 1972; (2) Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 186366 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City; (3) "Deed of Absolute Sale" dated July 16, 1979; and (4) TCT No. 258977 of the Registry of Deeds for Metro Manila II, and to restore and revive, free from all liens and encumbrances TCT No. 186306 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City; and (c) Defendants Emilia M. Ching, Go Song and Tan Sio Kien jointly and severally to pay [Muoz] the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorneys fees and to pay the cost of suit.37 Unrelenting, Muoz filed a Motion for Clarificatory Order, pointing out that the spouses Chan are the present occupants of the subject property. The Order dated August 21, 1995 of the RTC-Branch 95 directed the deputy sheriff to deliver the subject property to Muoz, and this could not be done unless the spouses Chan are evicted therefrom. Resultantly, Muoz prayed that "a clarificatory order be made categorically stating that the spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan, and all persons claiming right under them, are likewise evicted from the subject premises pursuant to the Order of 21 August 1995."38 Once more, the RTC-Branch 95 denied Muozs motion in its Order dated October 3, 1995. The RTC-Branch 95 reiterated the rule that after the judgment had become final, only clerical errors, as distinguished from substantial errors, can be amended by the court. Furthermore, when the decision or judgment sought to be amended is promulgated by an appellate court, it is beyond the power of the trial court to change, amplify, enlarge, alter, or modify. Ultimately, the RTC-Branch 95 pronounced that it was "restrained x x x to consider as mere clerical error the exclusion of spouses Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan in the Decision of the Court dated July 19, 1991, a final judgment, which judgment cannot now be made to speak a different language."39 Attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC-Branch 95 in issuing its Orders dated August 21, 1995 and October 3, 1995, Muoz filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, which was remanded to the Court of Appeals in observance of the hierarchy of courts, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 40019. The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on September 29, 2000 dismissing Muozs petition. The Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC-Branch 95 that the spouses Chan could not be covered by the alias writ of execution considering that they were not impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-28580. The cancellation of TCT No. 53297 in the spouses Chans names could not be done apart from a separate action exclusively for that matter. The spouses Chan are deemed buyers in good faith and for value as the certificate of title delivered to them by BPI Family was free from any liens or encumbrances or any mark that would have raised the spouses Chans suspicions. Every person dealing with

registered lands may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title of the vendor/transferor, and he is not required to go beyond the certificate and inquire into the circumstances culminating in the vendors acquisition of the property. The Court of Appeals denied Muozs motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 5, 2001. Muoz comes before this Court via the present consolidated petitions. Muoz posits that the final judgment and writ of execution of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 bind not only Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go, but also their successors-in-interest, assigns, or persons acting on their behalf, namely, BPI Family and spouses Chan. The spouses Chan cannot be deemed innocent purchasers for value of the property since the cancellation of the adverse claim and notice of lis pendens on the spouses Gos TCT No. 258977 is completely null and void. Muoz further argues that the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994 in Civil Case No. 8286 correctly ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction restoring possession of the subject property to her, as she had already acquired prior possession of the said property upon the execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580. Also, the spouses Chans petition for certiorari before the RTC-Branch 88, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20632, challenging the Order dated May 16, 1994 of the MeTC in Civil Case No. 8286, is a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Summary Procedure; and the RTC-Branch 88 and the Court of Appeals should be faulted for giving due course to the said petition even in the absence of jurisdiction. On the other hand, in their comments to the two petitions at bar, the spouses Chan, Atty. Yabut, and BPI Family assert that given the peculiar factual circumstances of the case, RTC-Branch 88 was justified in taking cognizance of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabuts petition for certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632; that Muoz is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of RTC-Branch 88 after participating in the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632; that the spouses Chans title to the subject property is not affected by the final judgment of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and the said judgment cannot be executed against the spouses Chan since they are neither parties to the case, nor are they the successors-in-interest, assigns, or persons acting on behalf of Emilia M. Ching or the spouses Go; that BPI Family and consequently, the spouses Chan, obtained title to the subject property as innocent purchasers for value, there being no notice of any infirmity in said title; and that Muoz is guilty of forum shopping for filing her petition in G.R. No. 146718 even while her petition in G.R. No. 142676 is still pending. II RULING For the sake of expediency, we will be discussing first the merits of the petition in G.R. No. 146718. G.R. No. 146718

26

Civil Case No. Q-28580 involved Muozs complaint for the annulment of the deeds of absolute sale dated December 28, 1972 40 and July 16, 1979,41 the cancellation of the spouses Gos TCT No. 258977, and the restoration and revival of Muozs TCT No. 186306. The final judgment of RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580 was in favor of Muoz and against Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go. The problem arose when during the pendency of the said case, title and possession of the subject property were transferred from the spouses Go, to BPI Family, and finally, to the spouses Chan. BPI Family and the spouses Chan were never impleaded as parties and were not referred to in the dispositive portion of the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580. Muoz questions in G.R. No. 146718: (1) the Order dated August 21, 1995 denying her Motion for Contempt against the spouses Chan, Second Motion for Contempt against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut, and Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution and Application for Surrender of the Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 53297; and (2) the Order dated October 3, 1995 denying her Motion for Clarificatory Order, both issued by the RTC-Branch 95 in Civil Case No. Q-28580, and upheld by the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 40019. In sum, Muoz was seeking in her aforementioned motions: (1) a categorical order from the RTC-Branch 95 that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q28580 be executed against the spouses Chan; and (2) the surrender and cancellation of the spouses Chans TCT No. 53297 and restoration of Muozs TCT No. 186306. There is no merit in Muozs petition in G.R. No. 146718. Civil Case No. Q-28580 is an action for reconveyance of real property. In Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez,42 we described an action for reconveyance as follows: An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in anothers name. Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.43 (Emphases ours.) The rule is that: (1) a judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such as a judgment in a land registration case or probate of a will; and (2) a judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon strangers. A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam; it is binding only against the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.44

Since they were not impleaded as parties and given the opportunity to participate in Civil Case No. Q-28580, the final judgment in said case cannot bind BPI Family and the spouses Chan. The effect of the said judgment cannot be extended to BPI Family and the spouses Chan by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto.45 A similar situation existed in Dino v. Court of Appeals,46 where we resolved that: As the registered owner of the subject property, petitioners are not bound by decision in Civil Case No. R-18073 for they were never summoned in said case and the notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. 73069 was already cancelled at the time petitioners purchased the subject property. While it is true that petitioners are indispensable parties in Civil Case No. R-18073, without whom no complete relief could be accorded to the private respondents, the fact still remains that petitioners were never actually joined as defendants in said case. Impleading petitioners as additional defendants only in the execution stage of said case violated petitioners right to due process as no notice of lis pendens was annotated on the existing certificate of title of said property nor were petitioners given notice of the pending case, therefore petitioners remain strangers in said case and the Order of the trial court involving them is null and void, considering that petitioners are innocent purchasers of the subject property for value. 47 We further stress that Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, clearly provides that "[a] certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law." Herein, several Torrens titles were already issued after the cancellation of Muozs. Certificates of title had been successively issued to Emilia M. Ching, spouses Go, BPI Family, and spouses Chan. Civil Case No. Q-28580, in which a final judgment had already been rendered, specifically challenged the validity of the certificates of title of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go only. To have the present certificate of title of the spouses Chan cancelled, Muoz must institute another case directly attacking the validity of the same. The fact that the titles to the subject property of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go were already declared null and void ab initio by final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 is not enough, for it does not automatically make the subsequent titles of BPI Family and the spouses Chan correspondingly null and void ab initio. It has long been ingrained in our jurisprudence that a void title may become the root of a valid title if the derivative title was obtained in good faith and for value. Following the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title, every person dealing with registered lands may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title of the vendor/transferor, and he is not required to go beyond the certificate and inquire into the circumstances culminating in the vendors acquisition of the property. The rights of innocent third persons who relied on the correctness of the certificate of title and acquired rights over the property covered 27

thereby cannot be disregarded and the courts cannot order the cancellation of such certificate for that would impair or erode public confidence in the Torrens system of land registration.48 Hence, we pronounced in Republic v. Agunoy, Sr.49: Here, it bears stressing that, by petitioner's own judicial admission, the lots in dispute are no longer part of the public domain, and there are numerous third, fourth, fifth and more parties holding Torrens titles in their favor and enjoying the presumption of good faith. This brings to mind what we have reechoed in Pino v. Court of Appeals and the cases therein cited: [E]ven on the supposition that the sale was void, the general rule that the direct result of a previous illegal contract cannot be valid (on the theory that the spring cannot rise higher than its source) cannot apply here for We are confronted with the functionings of the Torrens System of Registration. The doctrine to follow is simple enough: a fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the ROOT of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger.50(Emphases ours.) Although the RTC-Branch 95 had declared with finality in Civil Case No. Q-28580 that the titles of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go were null and void, there is yet no similar determination on the titles of BPI Family and the spouses Chan. The question of whether or not the titles to the subject property of BPI Family and the spouses Chan are null and void, since they are merely the successors-in-interest, assigns, or privies of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go, ultimately depends on the issue of whether or not BPI Family and the spouses Chan obtained their titles to the subject property in bad faith, i.e., with notice of Muozs adverse claim and knowledge of the pendency of Civil Case No. Q28580. The latter is a factual issue on which we cannot rule in the present petition, not only because we are not a trier of facts, but more importantly, because it was not among the issues raised and tried in Civil Case No. Q-28580. In support of her prayer for an alias writ of execution against BPI Family and the spouses Go, Muoz cites our ruling in Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 51 in relation to De la Cruz v. De la Cruz.52 De la Cruz is an action for reconveyance of Lot 671 founded on breach of trust filed by Augustina de la Cruz, et al., against Lucia dela Cruz (Lucia) and Iglesia Ni Kristo (INK). We upheld the validity of the sale of Lot 671 by Lucia to INK, and thereby validated the title of INK to the said property. Calalang actually involved two petitions: (1) a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition originally filed by Virginia Calalang (Calalang) before this Court, and (2) a petition for injunction with damages originally filed by Augusto M. de Leon (De Leon), et al., before the RTC and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-45767. Calalang and De Leon, et al., assert titles that were adverse to that of INK. De Leon, et al., in particular, claim that their titles to Lot 671 were derived from Amando Clemente. Calalang and De Leon, et al.,

sought from the court orders enjoining INK from building a fence to enclose Lot 671; requiring the Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA) to conduct an investigation of the anomaly regarding Lucias reconstituted title to Lot 671; and dismissing the proceedings instituted by the Register of Deeds for the cancellation of their titles. We dismissed the petitions of Calalang and De Leon, et al., on the ground of res judicata, the legality or validity of the title of INK over Lot 671 had been settled with finality in De la Cruz. De la Cruz was applied to Calalang and De Leon, et al., since the facts on which such decision was predicated continued to be the facts on which the petitions of Calalang and De Leon, et al., were based. Muozs reliance on Calalang is misplaced. There are substantial differences in the facts and issues involved in Calalang and the present case. In Calalang, there is duplication or overlapping of certificates of title issued to different persons over the same property. We already upheld in De la Cruz the validity of the certificate of title of INK over Lot 671, which effectively prevents us from recognizing the validity of any other certificate of title over the same property. In addition, Lucia, the predecessor-in-interest of INK, had her certificate of title judicially reconstituted. The judicial reconstitution of title is a proceeding in rem, constituting constructive notice to the whole world. Hence, we rejected the petitions of Calalang and De Leon, et al., to enjoin INK from building a fence enclosing Lot 671, and the concerned public authorities from instituting appropriate proceedings to have all other certificates of title over Lot 671 annulled and cancelled. In the instant case, there has been no duplication or overlapping of certificates of title. The subject property has always been covered by only one certificate of title at a time, and at present, such certificate is in the spouses Chans names. As we have previously discussed herein, Muoz cannot have the spouses Chans TCT No. 53297 cancelled by a mere motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. Q-28580, when the spouses Chan were not parties to the case. Civil Case No. Q-28580 was a proceeding in personam, and the final judgment rendered therein declaring null and void the titles to the subject property of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go should bind only the parties thereto. Furthermore, despite the void titles of Emilia M. Ching and the spouses Go, the derivative titles of BPI Family and the spouses Chan may still be valid provided that they had acquired the same in good faith and for value. More in point with the instant petition is Pineda v. Santiago. 53 Pineda still involved Lot 671. INK sought from the RTC a second alias writ of execution to implement the judgment in Calalang against Conrado Pineda (Pineda), et. al. In opposing the issuance of such writ, Pineda, et al., asserted that they held titles to Lot 671 adverse to those of Lucia and INK and that they were not parties in De la Cruz or in Calalang. In its assailed order, the RTC granted the second alias writ of execution on the basis that the issue of ownership of Lot 671 was already determined with finality in favor of Lucia and INK. The writ ordered the deputy sheriff to eject Pineda, et al., from Lot 671. When the matter was brought before us, we annulled the assailed order as the writ of execution issued was against Pineda, et al., who were not parties to Civil Case No. Q-45767, the ejectment suit instituted by De Leon, et al. We elaborated in Pineda that:

28

Being a suit for injunction, Civil Case No. Q-45767 partakes of an action in personam. In Domagas v. Jensen, we have explained the nature of an action in personam and enumerated some actions and proceedings which are in personam, viz: "The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam." The respondent judge's jurisdiction is, therefore, limited to the parties in the injunction suit. To stress, the petition for injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-45767, was filed only by therein petitioners Augusto M. de Leon, Jose de Castro, Jose A. Panlilio, Felicidad Vergara Vda. De Pineda, Fernando L. Vitug I, Fernando M. Vitug II, Fernando M. Vitug III, and Faustino Tobia, and later amended to include Elena Ostrea and Feliza C. CristobalGeneroso as additional petitioners therein, against Bishop Erao Manalo, in his capacity as titular and spiritual head of I.N.K. Herein petitioners Conrado Pineda, et al. never became parties thereto. Any and all orders and writs of execution, which the respondent judge may issue in that case can, therefore, be enforced only against those parties and not against the herein petitioners Conrado Pineda, et al. In issuing the assailed Order dated 22 April 1998, which directed the issuance of the 2nd Alias Writ of Execution to eject non-parties (herein petitioners), the respondent judge clearly went out of bounds and committed grave abuse of discretion. The nature of the injunction suit Civil Case No. Q-45767 as an action in personam in the RTC remains to be the same whether it is elevated to the CA or to this Court for review. An action in personam does not become an action in rem just because a pronouncement confirming I.N.K.'s title to Lot 671 was made by this Court in the Calalang decision. Final rulings may be made by this Court, as the Highest Court of the Land, in actions in personam but such rulings are binding only as against the parties therein and not against the whole world. Here lies another grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge when he relied on the Calalang decision in his assailed Order dated 07 May 1998 as if it were binding against the whole world, saying:

"After evaluating the arguments of both parties, decisive on the incident is the decision of the Supreme Court in favor of the respondent I.N.K., represented by its titular and spiritual head Bishop Erao G. Manalo, sustaining its ownership over the subject Lot 671. This Court could do no less but to follow and give substantial meaning to its ownership which shall include all dominical rights by way of a Writ of Execution. To delay the issuance of such writ is a denial of justice due the I.N.K." As a final word, this decision shall not be misinterpreted as disturbing or modifying our ruling in Calalang. The final ruling on I.N.K.'s ownership and title is not at all affected. Private respondent I.N.K., as the true and lawful owner of Lot 671 as ruled by the Court in Calalang, simply has to file the proper action against the herein petitioners to enforce its property rights within the bounds of the law and our rules. I.N.K.'s recourse of asking for the issuance of an alias writ of execution against the petitioners in Civil Case No. Q-45767 and the respondent judge's orders in said case, granting I.N.K.'s prayer and enforcing the alias writ of execution against the present petitioners, constitutes blatant disregard of very fundamental rules and must therefore be stricken down.54 (Emphases ours.) Consistent with Pineda, and as appositely recommended by the RTC-Branch 95 and the Court of Appeals in the present case, Muozs legal remedy is to directly assail in a separate action the validity of the certificates of title of BPI Family and the spouses Chan. G.R. No. 142676 G.R. No. 142676 is Muozs appeal of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286, the forcible entry case she instituted against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut before the MeTC. There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. It is also settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is determining who is entitled to the physical possession of the property. Indeed, any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.55 Title is never in issue in a forcible entry case, the court should base its decision on who had prior physical possession. The main thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior possession and that same was lost through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth, so that it behooves the court to restore possession regardless of title or ownership.56 We more extensively discussed in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals57 that: 29

Ownership or the right to possess arising from ownership is not at issue in an action for recovery of possession. The parties cannot present evidence to prove ownership or right to legal possession except to prove the nature of the possession when necessary to resolve the issue of physical possession. The same is true when the defendant asserts the absence of title over the property. The absence of title over the contested lot is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case. The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is - who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a partys title to the property is questionable, or when both parties intruded into public land and their applications to own the land have yet to be approved by the proper government agency. Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession. Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him. To repeat, the only issue that the court has to settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession.58 (Emphases ours.) Based on the foregoing, we find that the RTC-Branch 88 erred in ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286 even before completion of the proceedings before the MeTC. At the time said case was ordered dismissed by RTC-Branch 88, the MeTC had only gone so far as holding a hearing on and eventually granting Muozs prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Muoz alleges in her complaint in Civil Case No. 8286 that she had been in prior possession of the subject property since it was turned-over to her by the sheriff on January 10, 1994, pursuant to the Alias Writ of Execution issued by the RTC-Branch 95 to implement the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580. The factual issue of who was in prior possession of the subject property should be litigated between the parties regardless of whether or not the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 extended to the spouses Chan. Hence, the pendency of the latter issue in Civil Case No. Q-28580 before the RTCBranch 95 did not warrant the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286 before the MeTC on the ground of litis pendentia. The two cases could proceed independently of one another. Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut aver that the spouses Chan have never lost possession of the subject property since acquiring the same from BPI Family in 1990. This is a worthy defense to Muozs complaint for forcible entry, which Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut should substantiate with evidence in the continuation of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 8286 before the MeTC. In addition, Civil Case No. 8286, a forcible entry case, is governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 19 whereof provides:

SEC. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule: xxxx (g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court. The purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases without regard to technical rules. Pursuant to this objective, the Rule prohibits petitions for certiorari, like a number of other pleadings, in order to prevent unnecessary delays and to expedite the disposition of cases.59 Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. 60 An order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, is interlocutory and unappealable.61
1avvphil

The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the MeTC in its Order dated May 16, 1994, directing that Muoz be placed in possession of the subject property during the course of Civil Case No. 8286, is an interlocutory order. Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut assailed the said order before the RTC-Branch 88 via a petition for certiorari, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20632. The RTC-Branch 88 gave due course to said petition, and not only declared the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994 null and void, but went further by dismissing Civil Case No. 8286. The prohibition in Section 19(g) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is plain enough. Its further exposition is unnecessary verbiage. 62 The petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 is clearly covered by the said prohibition, thus, it should have been dismissed outright by the RTC-Branch 88. While the circumstances involved in Muozs forcible entry case against Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut are admittedly very peculiar, these are insufficient to except the petition for certiorari of Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632 from the prohibition. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.63 Nonetheless, even though the peculiar circumstances extant herein do not justify the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8286, they do require limiting pro hac vice the reliefs the MeTC may accord to Muoz in the event that she is able to successfully prove forcible entry by Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut into the subject property (i.e., that the sheriff actually turned-over to Muoz the possession of the subject property on January 10, 1994, and that she was deprived of such possession by Samuel Go Chan and Atty. Yabut on February 2, 1994 by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth). Taking into account our ruling in G.R. No. 146718 that the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580 does not extend to the spouses Chan, who were not impleaded as parties to the said case 30

 the MeTC is precluded from granting to Muoz relief, whether preliminary or final, that will give her possession of the subject property. Otherwise, we will be perpetuating the wrongful execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28580. Based on the same reason, Muoz can no longer insist on the reinstatement of the MeTC Order dated May 16, 1994 granting a preliminary mandatory injunction that puts her in possession of the subject property during the course of the trial. Muoz though may recover damages if she is able to prove wrongful deprivation of possession of the subject property from February 2, 1994 until the finality of this decision in G.R. No. 146718. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we: (1) GRANT Emerita Muozs petition in G.R. No. 142676. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated July 21, 1995 and Resolution dated March 9, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 35322, which affirmed the Orders dated June 10, 1994 and August 5, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-94-20632. We DIRECT the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 33 of Quezon City to reinstate Emerita Muozs complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 8286 and to resume the proceedings only to determine whether or not Emerita Muoz was forcibly deprived of possession of the subject property from February 2, 1994 until finality of this judgment, and if so, whether or not she is entitled to an award for damages for deprivation of possession during the aforementioned period of time; and (2) DENY Emerita Munozs petition in G.R. No. 146718 for lack of merit, and AFFIRM the Decision dated September 29, 2000 and Resolution dated January 5, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40019, which in turn, affirmed the Orders dated August 21, 1995 and October 3, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95 of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-28580. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

31

e. Appellees Memorand[u]m Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 196919 June 6, 2011 3. It is not shown that the purported representative of petitioner has the required authority to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping in the latters behalf.3 Petitioner sought reconsideration and asked for leniency in the application of the Rules of Court. Attached in his motion were copies of the pleadings pertinent and relevant to his petition. Petitioner asserted that he was authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in behalf of Hugo Regalado by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney attached to the complaint filed together with the motion for reconsideration.4 Respondents opposed the motion and manifested that Hugo Regalado died on April 23, 2008, even before the challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was rendered on May 15, 2008.5 On December 15, 2009, Atty. Miguel B. Albar, counsel of Hugo Regalado, furnished the CA with a notice of Hugo Regalados death on April 23, 2008, together with a list of the latters legal representatives.6 On October 15, 2010, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration, ruling thus: With the death of Hugo Regalado on April 23, 2008, the authority of Jose Ramilo O. Regalado to represent the former in this case had ceased effective said date. Elemental is the rule that one of the causes of the termination of an agency is the death of the principal. Apparently, when the instant petition was filed on June 4, 2008, Jose Ramilo O. Regalado had no more authority to sign the verification thereof in behalf of deceased petitioner Hugo Regalado. In effect, the petition was without proper verification. In the absence of verification, the instant petition is deemed as an unsigned pleading, and, as such, it is considered as a mere scrap of paper and does not deserve the cognizance of this Court.7 From this denial, petitioner is now before this Court, seeking for the reversal of the CAs issuances. We shall first settle petitioners plea that he be permitted to pursue this appeal as a pauper litigant. Considering that petitioner was allowed by the courts a quo to prosecute his case as an indigent litigant and upon finding that he has complied with the conditions set forth by Section 19, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, 8 the prayer is granted. 9The Clerk of Court of the Second Division is directed to assign a regular docket number for this case, and the petition is hereby given due course.

JOSE RAMILO O. REGALADO, Petitioner, vs. CHAUCER B. REGALADO and GERARD R. CUEVAS, Respondents. RESOLUTION NACHURA, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the twin Resolutions dated September 24, 2009 1 and October 15, 20102 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP UDK No. 0235, entitled "Hugo C. Regalado, represented by Jose Ramilo O. Regalado v. Chaucer B. Regalado and Jose Gerard R. Cuevas." The first assailed Resolution dismissed petitioners appeal on the following grounds: 1. The petitioner failed to incorporate in his petition a written explanation why the preferred mode of personal service and filing as prescribed under Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court was not availed of; 2. Copies of the pertinent and relevant pleadings and documents, which are necessary for proper resolution of the case, were not attached to the petition, viz.: a. Complaint[;] b. Motion to Dismiss and the corresponding Comment thereon; c. Motion for Reconsideration of the MTCs October 5, 2007 Order and the respondents separate Opposition thereto; d. Notice of Appeal/Appeal Memorandum; [and]

32

Petitioner argues that after the death of Hugo Regalado, he did not lose his right or interest over the case since he is one of the compulsory heirs. As such, he signed the petition before the CA, not as an agent of Hugo Regalado, but as a compulsory heir. The petition is meritorious. The action that led to the present controversy was one for cancellation of title, which is a real action affecting as it does title to or possession of real property. It is an action that survives or is not extinguished upon the death of a party, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.10 Section 16, Rule 3 lays down the procedure that must be observed when a party dies in an action that survives, viz.: SEC.16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. The rule is intended to protect every party's right to due process. 11 The estate of the deceased party will continue to be properly represented in the suit, through the duly appointed legal representative.12 Moreover, no adjudication can be made against the successor of the deceased if the fundamental right to a day in court is denied.13 Hugo Regalado passed away on April 23, 2008, but the notice of his death was served to the CA by his counsel only on December 15, 2009. Although Hugo Regalado died as early as the pendency of the proceedings before the RTC, 14the non-fulfillment of the requirement before said court is excusable since the RTC rendered a decision on May 15, 2008, or before the expiration of the 30-day period set by the rule.

However, it should not have taken Atty. Miguel B. Albar twenty (20) months before notifying the CA, when the same ought to have been carried out at the time of the filing of their appeal. This notwithstanding, it was still error for the CA to dismiss the appeal. 1wphi1 After receiving the notice of Hugo Regalados death, together with a list of his representatives, it was incumbent upon the appellate court to order the latters appearance and cause their substitution as parties to the appeal. The belated filing of the notice must not prejudice the deceased partys legal representatives; the rules clearly provide that it is a mere ground for a disciplinary action against the erring counsel. Instead of abiding by the course of action set forth by the rules, the CA adopted a myopic examination of the procedural facts of the case. It focused simply on the validity of the Special Power of Attorney, and completely disregarded the notice of Hugo Regalados death. Indeed, nothing is more unfortunate in law than when a counsels remedial faux pas is improperly addressed by a court. Petitioner and the other legal representatives of Hugo Regalado were thus deprived of due process, and, as such, the CA issuances rendered against them were void. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ASSIGN a regular docket number to this case, and thereafter REMAND the case to the Court of Appeals. The September 24, 2009 and October 15, 2010 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is hereby ORDERED (1) to substitute the legal representatives of Hugo Regalado in his place as petitioner in CA-G.R. CEB-SP UDK No. 0235, and (2) to GIVE DUE COURSE to the appeal. For his unexplained negligence in complying with the rules on substitution of a deceased party, Atty. Miguel B. Albar is hereby REPRIMANDED with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED the Office of the Bar Confidant to be attached to the personal records of Atty. Miguel B. Albar. SO ORDERED.

33

On March 22, 1988, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners and against Guballa. The decision in part, reads: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 116121 July 18, 2011
3. 4. 5. 6.

In favor of herein plaintiffs and against defendant Jose Guballa:

1. 2. For the death of Ruben Reinoso, Sr. Loss of earnings (monthly income at the time of death (P2,000.00 Court used P 1,000.00 only per month (or P12,000.00 only per year) & victim then being 55 at death had ten (10) years life expectancy Mortuary, Medical & funeral expenses and all incidental expenses in the wake in serving those who condoled Moral damages .. Exemplary damages Litigation expenses . Attorneys fees P 30,000.00

120,000.00 15,000.00 50,000.00 25,000.00 15,000.00 25,000.00 P 250,000.00

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., represented by Ruben Reinoso Jr., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA, and FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION,** Respondent. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: Before the Court is a petition for review assailing the May 20, 1994 Decision 1 and June 30, 1994 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 19395, which set aside the March 22, 1988 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila (RTC) for nonpayment of docket fees. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and REVERSED and the complaint in this case is ordered DISMISSED. No costs pronouncement. SO ORDERED. The complaint for damages arose from the collision of a passenger jeepney and a truck at around 7:00 oclock in the evening of June 14, 1979 along E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City. As a result, a passenger of the jeepney, Ruben Reinoso, Sr. (Reinoso), was killed. The passenger jeepney was owned by Ponciano Tapales (Tapales) and driven by Alejandro Santos (Santos), while the truck was owned by Jose Guballa (Guballa) and driven by Mariano Geronimo(Geronimo). On November 7, 1979, the heirs of Reinoso (petitioners) filed a complaint for damages against Tapales and Guballa. In turn, Guballa filed a third party complaint against Filwriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (FGAC) under Policy Number OV-09527.

7.

Or a total of

For damages to property: In favor of defendant Ponciano Tapales and against defendant Jose Guballa:
1. Actual damages for repair is already awarded to defendant-cross-claimant Ponciano Tapales by Br. 9, RTC-Malolos, Bulacan (Vide: Exh. 1-G-Tapales); hence, cannot recover twice. Compensatory damages (earnings at P 150.00 per day) and for two (2) months jeepney stayed at the repair shop. Moral damages ... Exemplary damages . Attorneys fees P 9,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 P 44,000.00

2. 3. 4. 5.

or a total of

Under the 3rd party complaint against 3rd party defendant Filwriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of said 3rd party plaintiff by way of 3rd party liability under policy No. OV-09527 in the amount of P 50,000.00 undertaking plus P 10,000.00 as and for attorneys fees.

34

For all the foregoing, it is the well considered view of the Court that plaintiffs, defendant Ponciano Tapales and 3rd Party plaintiff Jose Guballa established their claims as specified above, respectively. Totality of evidence preponderance in their favor. JUDGMENT WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: In favor of plaintiffs for the death of Ruben Reinoso, Sr.P250,000.00; In favor of defendant Ponciano Tapales due to damage of his passenger jeepney . P 44,000.00; In favor of defendant Jose Guballa under Policy No. OV09527 P60,000.00; All the specified accounts with 6% legal rate of interest per annum from date of complaint until fully paid (Reformina vs. Tomol, 139 SCRA 260; and finally; Costs of suit. SO ORDERED.3 On appeal, the CA, in its Decision dated May 20, 1994, set aside and reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint on the ground of non-payment of docket fees pursuant to the doctrine laid down in Manchester v. CA.4 In addition, the CA ruled that since prescription had set in, petitioners could no longer pay the required docket fees. 5 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision but it was denied in a resolution dated June 30, 1994.6Hence, this appeal, anchored on the following GROUNDS: A. The Court of Appeals MISAPPLIED THE RULING of the Supreme Court in the case of Manchester Corporation vs. Court of Appeals to this case. B. The issue on the specification of the damages appearing in the prayer of the Complaint was NEVER PLACED IN ISSUE BY ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE COURT OF ORIGIN (REGIONAL TRIAL COURT) NOR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.

C. The issues of the case revolve around the more substantial issue as to the negligence of the private respondents and their culpability to petitioners." 7 The petitioners argue that the ruling in Manchester should not have been applied retroactively in this case, since it was filed prior to the promulgation of the Manchester decision in 1987. They plead that though this Court stated that failure to state the correct amount of damages would lead to the dismissal of the complaint, said doctrine should be applied prospectively. Moreover, the petitioners assert that at the time of the filing of the complaint in 1979, they were not certain of the amount of damages they were entitled to, because the amount of the lost income would still be finally determined in the course of the trial of the case. They claim that the jurisdiction of the trial court remains even if there was failure to pay the correct filing fee as long as the correct amount would be paid subsequently. Finally, the petitioners stress that the alleged defect was never put in issue either in the RTC or in the CA. The Court finds merit in the petition. The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory.8 In Manchester v. Court of Appeals ,9 it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. The strict application of this rule was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion ,10 wherein the Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. This ruling was made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees required.11 Thus, in the more recent case ofUnited Overseas Bank v. Ros,12 the Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. , and not the strict regulations set in Manchester, will apply. It has been on record that the Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. In the case of La Salette College v. Pilotin,13 the Court stated: Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances.14

35

While there is a crying need to unclog court dockets on the one hand, there is, on the other, a greater demand for resolving genuine disputes fairly and equitably, 15 for it is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is a primordial end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice. In this case, it cannot be denied that the case was litigated before the RTC and said trial court had already rendered a decision. While it was at that level, the matter of nonpayment of docket fees was never an issue. It was only the CA which motu propio dismissed the case for said reason. Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the rules so that the petitioners would be able to fully and finally prosecute their claim on the merits at the appellate level rather than fail to secure justice on a technicality, for, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.16 The Court also takes into account the fact that the case was filed before the Manchester ruling came out. Even if said ruling could be applied retroactively, liberality should be accorded to the petitioners in view of the recency then of the ruling. Leniency because of recency was applied to the cases of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals17 and Spouses Jimmy and Patri Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga. 18 In the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat (Mactan) ,19 it was stated that the "intent of the Court is clear to afford litigants full opportunity to comply with the new rules and to temper enforcement of sanctions in view of the recency of the changes introduced by the new rules." In Mactan, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also failed to pay the correct docket fees on time. We held in another case: x x x It bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that, on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the Rules, or except a particular case from its operation.20 The petitioners, however, are liable for the difference between the actual fees paid and the correct payable docket fees to be assessed by the clerk of court which shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 141 which provides: SEC. 2. Fees in lien. Where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or more than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall assess and collect the corresponding fees.

As the Court has taken the position that it would be grossly unjust if petitioners claim would be dismissed on a strict application of the Manchester doctrine, the appropriate action, under ordinary circumstances, would be for the Court to remand the case to the CA. Considering, however, that the case at bench has been pending for more than 30 years and the records thereof are already before this Court, a remand of the case to the CA would only unnecessarily prolong its resolution. In the higher interest of substantial justice and to spare the parties from further delay, the Court will resolve the case on the merits. The facts are beyond dispute. Reinoso, the jeepney passenger, died as a result of the collision of a jeepney and a truck on June 14, 1979 at around 7:00 oclock in the evening along E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City. It was established that the primary cause of the injury or damage was the negligence of the truck driver who was driving it at a very fast pace. Based on the sketch and spot report of the police authorities and the narration of the jeepney driver and his passengers, the collision was brought about because the truck driver suddenly swerved to, and encroached on, the left side portion of the road in an attempt to avoid a wooden barricade, hitting the passenger jeepney as a consequence. The analysis of the RTC appears in its decision as follows: Perusal and careful analysis of evidence adduced as well as proper consideration of all the circumstances and factors bearing on the issue as to who is responsible for the instant vehicular mishap convince and persuade this Court that preponderance of proof is in favor of plaintiffs and defendant Ponciano Tapales. The greater mass of evidence spread on the records and its influence support plaintiffs plaint including that of defendant Tapales. The Land Transportation and Traffic Rule (R.A. No. 4136), reads as follows: "Sec. 37. Driving on right side of highway. Unless a different course of action is required in the interest of the safety and the security of life, person or property, or because of unreasonable difficulty of operation in compliance therewith, every person operating a motor vehicle or an animal drawn vehicle on highway shall pass to the right when meeting persons or vehicles coming toward him, and to the left when overtaking persons or vehicles going the same direction, and when turning to the left in going from one highway to another, every vehicle shall be conducted to the right of the center of the intersection of the highway." Having in mind the foregoing provision of law, this Court is convinced of the veracity of the version of the passenger jeepney driver Alejandro Santos, (plaintiffs and Tapales witness) that while running on lane No. 4 westward bound towards Ortigas Avenue at between 30-40 kms. per hour (63-64 tsn, Jan. 6, 1984) the "sand & gravel" truck from the opposite direction driven by Mariano Geronimo, the headlights of which the former had seen while still at a distance of about 30-40 meters from the wooden barricade astride lanes 1 and 2, upon reaching said wooden block suddenly swerved to the left into lanes 3 and 4 at high speed "napakabilis po ng dating ng truck." (29 tsn, Sept. 26, 1985) in the process hitting them (Jeepney passenger) at the left side up to where the reserve tire was in an oblique manner "pahilis" (57 tsn, Sept. 26, 1985). The jeepney after it was bumped by the truck due to the strong impact was thrown "resting on its right side while the left side was on top of the Bangketa (side walk)". The passengers of the jeepney and its driver 36

were injured including two passengers who died. The left side of the jeepney suffered considerable damage as seen in the picture (Exhs. 4 & 5-Tapales, pages 331-332, records) taken while at the repair shop. The Court is convinced of the narration of Santos to the effect that the "gravel & sand" truck was running in high speed on the good portion of E. Rodriguez Avenue (lane 1 & 2) before the wooden barricade and (having in mind that it had just delivered its load at the Corinthian Gardens) so that when suddenly confronted with the wooden obstacle before it had to avoid the same in a manner of a reflex reaction or knee-jerk response by forthwith swerving to his left into the right lanes (lanes 3 & 4). At the time of the bumping, the jeepney was running on its right lane No. 4 and even during the moments before said bumping, moving at moderate speed thereon since lane No. 3 was then somewhat rough because being repaired also according to Mondalia who has no reason to prevaricate being herself one of those seriously injured. The narration of Santos and Mondalia are convincing and consistent in depicting the true facts of the case untainted by vacillation and therefore, worthy to be relied upon. Their story is forfeited and confirmed by the sketch drawn by the investigating officer Pfc. F. Amaba, Traffic Division, NPD, Quezon City who rushed to the scene of the mishap (Vide: Resolution of Asst fiscal Elizabeth B. Reyes marked as Exhs. 7, 7-A, 7-B-Tapales, pp. 166-168, records; the Certified Copy found on pages 598-600, ibid, with the attached police sketch of Pfc. Amaba, marked as Exh. 8-Tapales on page 169, ibid; certified copy of which is on page 594, ibid) indicating the fact that the bumping indeed occurred at lane No. 4 and showing how the gavel & sand truck is positioned in relation to the jeepney. The said police sketch having been made right after the accident is a piece of evidence worthy to be relied upon showing the true facts of the bumping-occurrence. The rule that official duty had been performed (Sec.5(m), R-131, and also Sec. 38, R-a30, Rev. Rules of Court) there being no evidence adduced and made of record to the contrary is that said circumstance involving the two vehicles had been the result of an official investigation and must be taken as true by this Court.211awphi1 While ending up on the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of fault in automobile collisions,22 the position of the two vehicles, as depicted in the sketch of the police officers, clearly shows that it was the truck that hit the jeepney. The evidentiary records disclosed that the truck was speeding along E. Rodriguez, heading towards Santolan Street, while the passenger jeepney was coming from the opposite direction. When the truck reached a certain point near the Meralco Post No. J9-450, the front portion of the truck hit the left middle side portion of the passenger jeepney, causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to the driver and passengers of the jeepney. The truck driver should have been more careful, because, at that time, a portion of E. Rodriguez Avenue was under repair and a wooden barricade was placed in the middle thereof. The Court likewise sustains the finding of the RTC that the truck owner, Guballa, failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the hiring and supervision of his employee. Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, provides: Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no

pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. xxxx Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxxx Employers shall be liable for the damage caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. xxxx The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of his employee. 23 Thus, in the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualification, experience and service record. With respect to the supervision of employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. These facts must be shown by concrete proof, including documentary evidence.24 Thus, the RTC committed no error in finding that the evidence presented by respondent Guballa was wanting. It ruled: x x x. As expected, defendant Jose Guballa, attempted to overthrow this presumption of negligence by showing that he had exercised the due diligence required of him by seeing to it that the driver must check the vital parts of the vehicle he is assigned to before he leaves the compound like the oil, water, brakes, gasoline, horn (9 tsn, July 17, 1986); and that Geronimo had been driving for him sometime in 1976 until the collision in litigation came about (5-6 tsn, ibid); that whenever his trucks gets out of the compound to make deliveries, it is always accompanied with two (2) helpers (16-17 tsn, ibid). This was all which he considered as selection and supervision in compliance with the law to free himself from any responsibility. This Court then cannot consider the foregoing as equivalent to an exercise of all the care of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his driver Mariano Geronimo."25 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 20, 1994 Decision and June 30, 1994 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the March 22, 1988 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila, is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.

37

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 167246 July 20, 2011

petitioner also subleased the property to various merchants-tenants in violation of the lease contract. The MTC-Branch 68 decided the ejectment case in favor of the respondent. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 155, Pasig City affirmed in toto the MTC-Branch 68 decision.10 The case, however, was re-raffled to the RTC-Branch 267, Pasig City because the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Branch 155, upon motion, inhibited himself from resolving the petitioners motion for reconsideration.11 The RTC-Branch 267 granted the petitioners motion, thereby reversing and setting aside the MTC-Branch 68 decision. Accordingly, Civil Case No. 8084 was dismissed for being prematurely filed. 12 Thus, the respondent filed a petition for review with the CA on April 10, 2002.13 During the pendency of the petition for review, the respondent filed on May 3, 2002 another case for unlawful detainer against the petitioner before the MTC-Branch 71, Pasig City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 9210. 14 This time, the respondent used as a ground for ejectment the expiration of the parties lease contract. On December 4, 2002, the MTC-Branch 71 rendered a decision 15 in favor of the respondent, the dispositive portion of which read, as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff [referring to the respondent] and against the defendant and all persons claiming rights under him, as follows: 1. Defendant and all persons claiming rights under him are ordered to peacefully vacate the premises located at Lot 9, Block 5, San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 488797 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City and to surrender the possession thereof to the plaintiff; 2. Defendant is ordered to pay unto plaintiff the following: a. Damages for the use of the property after the expiration of the lease contract therefor in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) a month, beginning 16 January 2002 until he and all those claiming rights under him have vacated and peacefully turned over the subject premises to the plaintiff; and b. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as and for attorneys fees together with costs of suit. 3. With respect to the commercial units built by [the] defendant on the subject land, he is hereby ordered to remove the same from the subject land and to restore the subject land in the same condition as it was received unto the plaintiff, at his exclusive account, failing which the same shall be removed by the plaintiff, with expenses therefor chargeable to the defendant. 38

GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE, Petitioner, vs. CANOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION BRION, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by George Leonard S. Umale (petitioner), challenging the August 20, 2004 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals ( CA) in CAG.R. SP. No. 78836 and its subsequent February 23, 2005 Resolution 3 that denied his motion for reconsideration. The CA reversed the Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City, that dismissed Canoga Park Development Corporations complaint for unlawful detainer on the ground of litis pendentia. ANTECEDENTS On January 4, 2000, the parties entered into a Contract of Lease 5 whereby the petitioner agreed to lease, for a period of two (2) years starting from January 16, 2000, an eight hundred sixty (860)-square-meter prime lot located in Ortigas Center, Pasig City owned by the respondent. The respondent acquired the subject lot from Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership through a Deed of Absolute Sale, subject to the following conditions: (1) that no shopping arcades or retail stores, restaurants, etc. shall be allowed to be established on the property, except with the prior written consent from Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership and (2) that the respondent and/or its successors-in-interest shall become member/s of the Ortigas Center Association, Inc. (Association), and shall abide by its rules and regulations.6 On October 10, 2000, before the lease contract expired, the respondent filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court ( MTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City, docketed as Civil Case No. 8084. 7The respondent used as a ground for ejectment the petitioners violation of stipulations in the lease contract regarding the use of the property. Under this contract, the petitioner shall use the leased lot as a parking space for light vehicles and as a site for a small drivers canteen, 8 and may not utilize the subject premises for other purposes without the respondents prior written consent. 9 The petitioner, however, constructed restaurant buildings and other commercial establishments on the lot, without first securing the required written consent from the respondent, and the necessary permits from the Association and the Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership. The

On appeal, the RTC-Branch 68 reversed and set aside the decision of the MTC-Branch 71, and dismissed Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia.16 The petitioner, however, was still ordered to pay rent in the amount of seventy-one thousand five hundred pesos (P71,500.00) per month beginning January 16, 2002, which amount is the monthly rent stipulated in the lease contract. Aggrieved by the reversal, the respondent filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court with the CA. The respondent argued that there exists no litis pendentia between Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 because the two cases involved different grounds for ejectment, i.e., the first case was filed because of violations of the lease contract, while the second case was filed due to the expiration of the lease contract. The respondent emphasized that the second case was filed based on an event or a cause not yet in existence at the time of the filing of the first case.17 The lease contract expired on January 15, 2002,18 while the first case was filed on October 10, 2000. On August 20, 2004, the CA nullified and set aside the assailed decision of the RTCBranch 68, and ruled that there was no litis pendentia because the two civil cases have different causes of action. The decision of the MTC- Branch 71 was ordered reinstated. Subsequently, the petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the filing of the present petition for review on certiorari. In presenting his case before this Court, the petitioner insists that litis pendentia exists between the two ejectment cases filed against him because of their identity with one another and that any judgment on the first case will amount to res judicata on the other. The petitioner argues that the respondent reiterated the ground of violations of the lease contract, with the additional ground of the expiration of the lease contract in the second ejectment case. Also, the petitioner alleges that all of the elements of litis pendentia are present in this case, thus, he prays for the reversal and setting aside of the assailed CA decision and resolution, and for the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia and/or forum shopping. THE COURTS RULING We disagree with the petitioner and find that there is no litis pendentia. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.19 Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present: identity of the parties in the two actions; substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the parties; and the identity between the two actions should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.20

In the present case, the parties bone of contention is whether Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve the same cause of action. The petitioner argues that the causes of action are similar, while the respondent argues otherwise. If an identity, or substantial identity, of the causes of action in both cases exist, then the second complaint for unlawful detainer may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. We rule that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve different causes of action. Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. 21 If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is ground for the dismissal of the others.22 Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action23 (also known as the "same evidence" test),24 or whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. 25 Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.26 Of the three tests cited, the third one is especially applicable to the present case, i.e., whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint and to which we answer in the negative. The facts clearly show that the filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on the petitioners violation of stipulations in the lease contract, while the filing of the second case was based on the expiration of the lease contract. At the time the respondent filed the first ejectment complaint on October 10, 2000, the lease contract between the parties was still in effect. The lease was fixed for a period of two (2) years, from January 16, 2000, and in the absence of a renewal agreed upon by the parties, the lease remained effective until January 15, 2002. It was only at the expiration of the lease contract that the cause of action in the second ejectment complaint accrued and made available to the respondent as a ground for ejecting the petitioner. Thus, the cause of action in the second case was not yet in existence at the time of filing of the first ejectment case. In response to the petitioners contention that the similarity of Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 rests on the reiteration in the second case of the cause of action in the first case, we rule that the restatement does not result in substantial identity between the two cases. Even if the respondent alleged violations of the lease contract as a ground for ejectment in the second complaint, the main basis for ejecting the petitioner in the second case was the expiration of the lease contract. If not for this subsequent development, the respondent could no longer file a second complaint for unlawful detainer because an ejectment complaint may only be filed within one year after the accrual of the cause of action,27 which, in the second case, was the expiration of the lease contract.
1awphi1

Also, contrary to petitioners assertion, there can be no conflict between the decisions rendered in Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 because the MTC-Branch 71 decided the latter case on the sole issue of whether the lease contract between the parties had expired. Although alleged by the respondent in its complaint, the MTC-Branch 71 did not

39

rule on the alleged violations of the lease contract committed by the petitioner. We note that the damages awarded by the MTC-Branch 71 in Civil Case No. 9210 were for those incurred after the expiration of the lease contract,28 not for those incurred prior thereto. Similarly, we do not find the respondent guilty of forum shopping in filing Civil Case No. 9210, the second civil case. To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the test applied is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.29 Considering our pronouncement that not all the requisites of litis pendentia are present in this case,the CA did not err in declaring that the respondent committed no forum shopping . Also, a close reading of the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping 30 (attached to the second ejectment complaint) shows that the respondent did disclose that it had filed a former complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioner. Thus, the respondent cannot be said to have committed a willful and deliberate forum shopping. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 20, 2004 and Resolution dated February 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 78836 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

40

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 182902 October 5, 2011

Associates Insurance Company, Inc. (Winternitz). Thereafter, the proceeds of the insurance were released to VMGA.8 On 3 September 2001, Ortigas entered into a Contract of Lease (Second Contract of Lease) with Uy effective 2 November 2001 to 31 December 2004. On 11 September 2001, the latter assigned and transferred to petitioner Virra Mall Tenants Association (VMTA) all his rights and interests over the property.9 On 7 February 2003, Ortigas filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages and Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against several defendants, including herein respondents. It accused them of fraud, misappropriation and conversion of substantial portions of the insurance proceeds for their own personal use unrelated to the repair and restoration of Virra Mall. To secure the subject insurance proceeds, Ortigas also sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against herein respondents. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 69312, and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Pasig City, Branch 67 (RTC Br. 67), which issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment on 12 February 2003.10 On 17 February 2003, VMTA filed a Complaint-in-Intervention. 11 It claimed that as the assignee or transferee of the rights and obligations of Uy in the Second Contract of Lease, and upon the order of Ortigas, it had engaged the services of various contractors. These contractors undertook the restoration of the damaged area of Virra Mall amounting to P18,902,497.75. Thus, VMTA sought the reimbursement of the expenses it had incurred in relation thereto.12 RTC Br. 67 admitted the Complaint-in-Intervention in its Order dated 8 January 2004.13 On 5 March 2004, herein respondents moved for the dismissal of the Complaint-inIntervention on the ground that it stated no cause of action. 14 In its Omnibus Order dated 2 August 2005, RTC Br. 67 denied this Motion to Dismiss.15 The trial court based its Decision on the grounds that (a) by filing the said motion, herein respondents hypothetically admitted the truth of the facts alleged in the Complaint-in-Intervention, and (b) the test of sufficiency of the facts alleged was whether or not the court could render a valid judgment as prayed for, accepting as true the exclusive facts set forth in the Complaint. 16 Thus, RTC Br. 67 held that if there are doubts as to the truth of the facts averred, then the court must not dismiss the Complaint, but instead require an answer and proceed to trial on the merits.17 On a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion, the CA reversed the ruling of RTC Br. 67 and dismissed the Complaint-in-Intervention on the following grounds: (a) VMTA failed to state a cause of action; (b) VMTA has no legal interest in the matter in litigation; and (c) the Complaint-in-Intervention would cause a delay in the trial of the action, make the issues more complicated, prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, stretch the issues, and increase the breadth of the remedies and relief. 18 The relevant portions of the Decision read: Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. Its essential elements are as follows:

VIRRA MALL TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. VIRRA MALL GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION, INC., LOLITA C. REGALADO, ANNIE L. TRIAS, WILSON GO, PABLO OCHOA, JR., BILL OBAG and GEORGE V. WINTERNITZ, Respondents. DECISION SERENO, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review of the 21 May 2007 Decision 1 and 14 May 2008 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing the Complaint-in-Intervention and denying the Motion for Reconsideration both filed by petitioner. Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership (Ortigas) is the owner of the Greenhills Shopping Center (GSC). On 5 November 1975, Ortigas and Virra Realty Development Corporation (Virra Realty) entered into a Contract of Lease (First Contract of Lease) over a portion of the GSC. The 25-year lease was to expire on 15 November 2000. Pursuant thereto, Virra Realty constructed a commercial building, the Virra Mall Shopping Center (Virra Mall), which was divided into either units for lease or units whose leasehold rights were sold.3 Thereafter, Virra Realty organized respondent Virra Mall Greenhills Association (VMGA), an association of all the tenants and leasehold right holders, who managed and operated Virra Mall. In the First Contract of Lease, VMGA assumed and was subrogated to all the rights, obligations and liabilities of Virra Realty.4 On 22 November 2000, VMGA, through its president, William Uy (Uy), requested from Ortigas the renewal of the First Contract of Lease.5 VGMA secured two insurance policies to protect Virra Mall against damage by fire and other causes. However, these insurance coverages expired simultaneously with the First Contract of Lease on 15 November 2000.6Subsequently, on 13 March 2001, VGMA acquired new sets of insurance policies effective 10 January 2001 to 31 December 2001.7 On 5 May 2001, Virra Mall was gutted by fire, requiring substantial repair and restoration. VMGA thus filed an insurance claim through the insurance broker, respondent Winternitz

41

1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and 3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. (Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161135, April 8, 2005, 455 SCRA 175, 183). If these elements are absent, the complaint is dismissible on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. What VMTA actually seeks in filing a complaint-in-intervention is the reimbursement of the cost of the restoration and rehabilitation of the burned area of the Virra Mall building. And VMTA believes that such reimbursement must be made from the fire insurance proceeds released to VMGA. Such position cannot be sustained.

be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of the property in the custody of the court or of an offices thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. As a general guide in determining whether a party may intervene, the court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding (Sec. 2(b), Rule 12; Balane, et al. vs. De Guzman, et al., 20 SCRA 177 [1967]). The complaint below is primarily on the issue of specific performance. The relief being sought by the VMTA in its complaint-in-intervention is the reimbursement of expenses incurred by it for the repair/restoration of the Virra Mall Building. VMTAs cause of action has a standpoint which is unique to itself. New, unrelated, and conflicting issues would be raised which do not concern the petitioners herein, or VMTA as intervenor. Inevitably, the allowance of the intervention will not only cause delay in the trial of the action, make the issues even more complicated, and stretch the issues in the action as well as amplify the breadth of the remedies and relief. Thereafter, VMTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied in the assailed Resolution dated 14 May 2008.19 Hence, the instant Petition raising the following issues: I.

Firstly, We find that the complaint-in-intervention fails to state a cause of action against the petitioners. The material averments of the complaint-in-intervention belie any correlative obligation on the part of herein petitioners vis--vis the legal right of VMTA for reimbursement. The petitioners are not the proper parties against whom the subject action for reimbursement must be directed to. On the contrary, since "x x x plaintiff Ortigas, as owner of the building, has ordered intervenor VMTA to undertake with dispatch the restoration and rehabilitation of the burned area or section of the Virra Mall buiding x x x" (par. 7 of Complaint-in-Intervention), VMTAs recourse would be to file and direct its claim against ORTIGAS who has the obligation to pay for the same. The complaint-inintervention is not the proper action for VMTA to enforce its right of reimbursement. At any rate, VMTAs rights, if any, can be ventilated and protected in a separate action. The complaint-in-intervention is therefore dismissible for failure to state a cause of action against the petitioners. Secondly, VMTA has no legal interest in the matter in litigation. It is not privy to the Contract of Lease between ORTIGAS and VMGA. It came into the picture only after the expiration of the said contract. Finally, Section 1, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: Section 1. Who may intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to

With due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave error in declaring that the complaint in intervention failed to state a cause of action against private respondents when it declared that the complaint in intervention belies any correlative obligation on the part of private respondents vis--vis the legal right of petitioner for reimbursement. II. With due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave error in holding that private respondents are not the proper parties against whom the subject action for reimbursement must be directed to but recourse would be for petitioner VMTA to file and direct its claim against OCLP who has the obligation to pay petitioner VMTA since it was OCLP who has (sic) ordered to undertake the restoration and rehabilitation of the burned area or section of the Virra Mall Building. III. With due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals similarly committed grave error when it ruled that the complaint-in-intervention is not the proper action to 42

enforce its right in the controversy between OCLP and private respondents since the proper remedy is for petitioner VMTA to ventilate and protect its right in a separate action.20 The determination of whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the Complaint-in-Intervention filed by VMTA boils down to the sole issue of the propriety of this remedy in enforcing the latters rights. According to VMTA, it has a legal interest in Civil Case No. 69312, which is rooted in the alleged failure of VMGA to turn over the insurance proceeds for the restoration and rehabilitation of Virra Mall, in breach of the latters contractual obligation to Ortigas. However, the CA ruled against this position taken by VMTA not only because, in the CAs view, VMTAs Complaint-in-Intervention failed to state a cause of action, but also because it has no legal interest in the matter in litigation. We rule in favor of VMTA. Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides: Who may intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. In Executive Secretary v. Northeast Freight,21 this Court explained intervention in this wise: Intervention is not a matter of absolute right but may be permitted by the court when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing intervention. Under our Rules of Court, what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both; or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof. As regards the legal interest as qualifying factor, this Court has ruled that such interest must be of a direct and immediate character so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment. The interest must be actual and material, a concern which is more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire; it must not be indirect and contingent, indirect and remote, conjectural, consequential or collateral. However, notwithstanding the presence of a legal interest, permission to intervene is subject to the sound discretion of the court, the exercise of which is limited by considering "whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and whether or not the intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding."22 (Emphasis supplied.) Applying the foregoing points to the case at bar, VMTA may be allowed to intervene, and the ruling of RTC Br. 67 allowing intervention was wrongly reversed by the CA because such a ruling does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.

VMTA has a cause of action A cause of action is defined as "the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."23 In Shell Philippines v. Jalos,24 this Court expounded on what constitutes a cause of action, to wit: A cause of action is the wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. Its elements consist of: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiffs right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, however, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.25 In the case at bar, VMTA, in its Complaint-in-Intervention, explicitly laid down its cause of action as follows:26 Pursuant to and by virtue of such claim, defendant VMGA and defendant VMGA Board Members, impleaded as party defendants herein, received, at various times, from their insurance broker, and it is in their custody, the insurance proceeds arising out of such claim which, as of January 8, 2003, aggregated P48.6-Million. Having failed to deliver the said proceeds to the real beneficiary inspite of due notice and demand, plaintiff Ortigas herein instituted the present action against all the defendants to compel delivery of the said insurance proceeds which are being unlawfully and illegally withheld by all the defendant VMGA and defendant VMGA Board Members inspite of written demands made therefor. Worse, a portion of said insurance proceeds, aggregating P8.6-Million had already been disbursed and misappropriated in breach of trust and fiduciary duty. (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear from the foregoing allegations that VMTAs purported right is rooted in its claim that it is the real beneficiary of the insurance proceeds, on the grounds that it had (a) facilitated the repair and restoration of the insured infrastructure upon the orders of Ortigas, and (b) advanced the costs thereof. Corollarily, respondents have a duty to reimburse it for its expenses since the insurance proceeds had already been issued in favor of respondent VMGA, even if the latter was not rightfully entitled thereto. Finally, the imputed act or omission on the part of respondents that supposedly violated the right of VMTA was respondent VMGAs refusal, despite demand, to release the insurance proceeds it received to reimburse the former for the expenses it had incurred in relation to the restoration and repair of Virra Mall. Clearly, then, VMTA was able to establish its cause of action. VMTA has a legal interest in the matter in litigation VMTA was also able to show its legal interest in the matter in litigation VMGAs insurance proceeds considering that it had already advanced the substantial amount of P18,902,497.75 for the repair and restoration of Virra Mall. That VMTA seeks reimbursement from Ortigas is precisely the reason why intervention is proper. The main 43

issue in Civil Case No. 69312 is whether Ortigas has a contractual right to the insurance proceeds received by VMGA. Thus, the recoupment by VMTA of the expenses it incurred in the repair of Virra Mall depends on the success of either party in the main case. VMTA therefore has an undeniable stake in Civil Case No. 69312 that would warrant its intervention therein. Further, the issuance to Ortigas of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against VMGA puts VMTA in a situation in which it will be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of the property in the custody of the court, pursuant to the said writ. The prospect of any distribution or disposition of the attached property will likewise affect VMTAs claim for reimbursement.
lawphil

VMTAs intervention in Civil Case No. 69312 will avoid a multiplicity of suits Lastly, allowing VMTA to intervene in Civil Case No. 69312 finds support in Heirs of Medrano v. De Vera,27 to wit: The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims. Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations.28 Thus, although the CA was correct in stating that VMTA could always file a separate case against Ortigas, allowing VMTA to intervene will facilitate the orderly administration of justice and avoid a multiplicity of suits. We do not see how delay will be inordinately occasioned by the intervention of VMTA, contrary to the fear of the CA. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 21 May 2007 and Resolution dated 14 May 2008 of the CA are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the Complaint-in-Intervention filed by VMTA is concerned. The Complaint-in-Intervention of VMTA in Civil Case No. 69312 is allowed to proceed before RTC Br. 67. SO ORDERED.

44

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 175799 November 28, 2011

applied for a license to do business in the Philippines, nor filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a Written Power of Attorney designating some person on whom summons and other legal processes maybe served. The trial court also held that the Complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. The other allegations in the Motion to Dismiss were brushed aside as matters of defense which can best be ventilated during the trial. On December 27, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 7 On March 6, 2006, the trial court issued an Order denying the December 27, 2005 Motion for Reconsideration and disallowed the twin Motions for Leave to take deposition and serve written interrogatories.8 On April 3, 2006, petitioner sought redress via a Petition for Certiorari 9 with the Court of Appeals, alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its Motion to Dismiss. The Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94382. On September 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. The Court of Appeals ruled that since the denial of a Motion to Dismiss is an interlocutory order, it cannot be the subject of a Petition for Certiorari, and may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. On December 12, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Resolution denying the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Meanwhile, on December 28, 2006, the trial court issued an Order directing respondent to answer some of the questions in petitioners Interrogatories to Plaintiff dated September 7, 2006. Notwithstanding the foregoing, petitioner filed the present petition assailing the September 8, 2006 Decision and the December 12, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Arguing against the ruling of the appellate court, petitioner insists that (a) an order denying a motion to dismiss may be the proper subject of a petition for certiorari; and (b) the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in not finding that it had not validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and that the plaintiff had no cause of action. Respondent, on the other hand, posits that: (a) the present Petition should be dismissed for not being filed by a real party in interest and for lack of a proper verification and certificate of non-forum shopping; (b) the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that certiorari was not the proper remedy; and (c) the trial court correctly denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Our discussion of the issues raised by the parties follows: Whether petitioner is a real party in interest

NM ROTHSCHILD & SONS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED, Petitioner, vs. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Respondent. DECISION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 8, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 94382 and its Resolution 2 dated December 12, 2006, denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
1

On August 30, 2005, respondent Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City a Complaint 3 against petitioner NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited praying for a judgment declaring the loan and hedging contracts between the parties void for being contrary to Article 2018 4 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and for damages. The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 05-782, and was raffled to Branch 150. Upon respondents (plaintiffs) motion, the trial court authorized respondents counsel to personally bring the summons and Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney, Australia for the latter office to effect service of summons on petitioner (defendant). On October 20, 2005, petitioner filed a Special Appearance With Motion to Dismiss5 praying for the dismissal of the Complaint on the following grounds: (a) the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner due to the defective and improper service of summons; (b) the Complaint failed to state a cause of action and respondent does not have any against petitioner; (c) the action is barred by estoppel; and (d) respondent did not come to court with clean hands. On November 29, 2005, petitioner filed two Motions: (1) a Motion for Leave to take the deposition of Mr. Paul Murray (Director, Risk Management of petitioner) before the Philippine Consul General; and (2) a Motion for Leave to Serve Interrogatories on respondent. On December 9, 2005, the trial court issued an Order 6 denying the Motion to Dismiss. According to the trial court, there was a proper service of summons through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on account of the fact that the defendant has neither

Respondent argues that the present Petition should be dismissed on the ground that petitioner no longer existed as a corporation at the time said Petition was filed on February 45

1, 2007. Respondent points out that as of the date of the filing of the Petition, there is no such corporation that goes by the name NM Rothschild and Sons (Australia) Limited. Thus, according to respondent, the present Petition was not filed by a real party in interest, citing our ruling in Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals,10 wherein we held: A name is peculiarly important as necessary to the very existence of a corporation (American Steel Foundries vs. Robertson, 269 US 372, 70 L ed 317, 46 S Ct 160; Lauman vs. Lebanon Valley R. Co., 30 Pa 42; First National Bank vs. Huntington Distilling Co., 40 W Va 530, 23 SE 792). Its name is one of its attributes, an element of its existence, and essential to its identity (6 Fletcher [Perm Ed], pp. 3-4). The general rule as to corporations is that each corporation must have a name by which it is to sue and be sued and do all legal acts. The name of a corporation in this respect designates the corporation in the same manner as the name of an individual designates the person (Cincinnati Cooperage Co. vs. Bate, 96 Ky 356, 26 SW 538; Newport Mechanics Mfg. Co. vs. Starbird, 10 NH 123); and the right to use its corporate name is as much a part of the corporate franchise as any other privilege granted (Federal Secur. Co. vs. Federal Secur. Corp., 129 Or 375, 276 P 1100, 66 ALR 934; Paulino vs. Portuguese Beneficial Association, 18 RI 165, 26 A 36).11 In its Memorandum12 before this Court, petitioner started to refer to itself as Investec Australia Limited (formerly "NM Rothschild & Sons [Australia] Limited") and captioned said Memorandum accordingly. Petitioner claims that NM Rothschild and Sons (Australia) Limited still exists as a corporation under the laws of Australia under said new name. It presented before us documents evidencing the process in the Australian Securities & Investment Commission on the change of petitioners company name from NM Rothschild and Sons (Australia) Limited to Investec Australia Limited. 13 We find the submissions of petitioner on the change of its corporate name satisfactory and resolve not to dismiss the present Petition for Review on the ground of not being prosecuted under the name of the real party in interest. While we stand by our pronouncement in Philips Export on the importance of the corporate name to the very existence of corporations and the significance thereof in the corporations right to sue, we shall not go so far as to dismiss a case filed by the proper party using its former name when adequate identification is presented. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.14 There is no doubt in our minds that the party who filed the present Petition, having presented sufficient evidence of its identity and being represented by the same counsel as that of the defendant in the case sought to be dismissed, is the entity that will be benefited if this Court grants the dismissal prayed for. Since the main objection of respondent to the verification and certification against forum shopping likewise depends on the supposed inexistence of the corporation named therein, we give no credit to said objection in light of the foregoing discussion. Propriety of the Resort to a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals

We have held time and again that an order denying a Motion to Dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. The general rule, therefore, is that the denial of a Motion to Dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for Certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.15 However, we have likewise held that when the denial of the Motion to Dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the grant of the extraordinary remedy of Certiorari may be justified. By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant: [S]uch capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of law. 16 The resolution of the present Petition therefore entails an inquiry into whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its denial of petitioners Motion to Dismiss. A mere error in judgment on the part of the trial court would undeniably be inadequate for us to reverse the disposition by the Court of Appeals. Issues more properly ventilated during the trial of the case As previously stated, petitioner seeks the dismissal of Civil Case No. 05-782 on the following grounds: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner due to the defective and improper service of summons; (b) failure of the Complaint to state a cause of action and absence of a cause of action; (c) the action is barred by estoppel; and (d) respondent did not come to court with clean hands. As correctly ruled by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the alleged absence of a cause of action (as opposed to the failure to state a cause of action), the alleged estoppel on the part of petitioner, and the argument that respondent is in pari delicto in the execution of the challenged contracts, are not grounds in a Motion to Dismiss as enumerated in Section 1, Rule 1617 of the Rules of Court. Rather, such defenses raise evidentiary issues closely related to the validity and/or existence of respondents alleged cause of action and should therefore be threshed out during the trial. As regards the allegation of failure to state a cause of action, while the same is usually available as a ground in a Motion to Dismiss, said ground cannot be ruled upon in the present Petition without going into the very merits of the main case. It is basic that "[a] cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."18 Its elements are the following: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right. 19 We have held that to sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does

46

not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.20 The trial court held that the Complaint in the case at bar contains all the three elements of a cause of action, i.e., it alleges that: (1) plaintiff has the right to ask for the declaration of nullity of the Hedging Contracts for being null and void and contrary to Article 2018 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; (2) defendant has the corresponding obligation not to enforce the Hedging Contracts because they are in the nature of wagering or gambling agreements and therefore the transactions implementing those contracts are null and void under Philippine laws; and (3) defendant ignored the advice and intends to enforce the Hedging Contracts by demanding financial payments due therefrom. 21 The rule is that in a Motion to Dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiff's complaint. 22 However, this principle of hypothetical admission admits of exceptions. Thus, in Tan v. Court of Appeals, 23 we held: The flaw in this conclusion is that, while conveniently echoing the general rule that averments in the complaint are deemed hypothetically admitted upon the filing of a motion to dismiss grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, it did not take into account the equally established limitations to such rule, i.e., that a motion to dismiss does not admit the truth of mere epithets of fraud; nor allegations of legal conclusions; nor an erroneous statement of law; nor mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated; nor mere conclusions of law; nor allegations of fact the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice; nor matters of evidence; nor surplusage and irrelevant matter; nor scandalous matter inserted merely to insult the opposing party; nor to legally impossible facts; nor to facts which appear unfounded by a record incorporated in the pleading, or by a document referred to; and, nor to general averments contradicted by more specific averments. A more judicious resolution of a motion to dismiss, therefore, necessitates that the court be not restricted to the consideration of the facts alleged in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Courts may consider other facts within the range of judicial notice as well as relevant laws and jurisprudence which the courts are bound to take into account, and they are also fairly entitled to examine records/documents duly incorporated into the complaint by the pleader himself in ruling on the demurrer to the complaint.24 (Emphases supplied.) In the case at bar, respondent asserts in the Complaint that the Hedging Contracts are void for being contrary to Article 2018 25 of the Civil Code. Respondent claims that under the Hedging Contracts, despite the express stipulation for deliveries of gold, the intention of the parties was allegedly merely to compel each other to pay the difference between the value of the gold at the forward price stated in the contract and its market price at the supposed time of delivery. Whether such an agreement is void is a mere allegation of a conclusion of law, which therefore cannot be hypothetically admitted. Quite properly, the relevant portions of the contracts sought to be nullified, as well as a copy of the contract itself, are incorporated in the Complaint. The determination of whether or not the Complaint stated a cause of action would therefore involve an inquiry into whether or not the assailed contracts are void

under Philippine laws. This is, precisely, the very issue to be determined in Civil Case No. 05-782. Indeed, petitioners defense against the charge of nullity of the Hedging Contracts is the purported intent of the parties that actual deliveries of gold be made pursuant thereto. Such a defense requires the presentation of evidence on the merits of the case. An issue that "requires the contravention of the allegations of the complaint, as well as the full ventilation, in effect, of the main merits of the case, should not be within the province of a mere Motion to Dismiss." 26 The trial court, therefore, correctly denied the Motion to Dismiss on this ground. It is also settled in jurisprudence that allegations of estoppel and bad faith require proof. Thus, in Paraaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,27 we ruled: Having come to the conclusion that the complaint states a valid cause of action for breach of the right of first refusal and that the trial court should thus not have dismissed the complaint, we find no more need to pass upon the question of whether the complaint states a cause of action for damages or whether the complaint is barred by estoppel or laches. As these matters require presentation and/or determination of facts , they can be best resolved after trial on the merits.28 (Emphases supplied.) On the proposition in the Motion to Dismiss that respondent has come to court with unclean hands, suffice it to state that the determination of whether one acted in bad faith and whether damages may be awarded is evidentiary in nature. Thus, we have previously held that "[a]s a matter of defense, it can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits."29 Jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Petitioner alleges that the RTC has not acquired jurisdiction over its person on account of the improper service of summons. Summons was served on petitioner through the DFA, with respondents counsel personally bringing the summons and Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney, Australia. In the pleadings filed by the parties before this Court, the parties entered into a lengthy debate as to whether or not petitioner is doing business in the Philippines. However, such discussion is completely irrelevant in the case at bar, for two reasons. Firstly, since the Complaint was filed on August 30, 2005, the provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure govern the service of summons. Section 12, Rule 14 of said rules provides: Sec. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entitywhich has transacted business in the Philippines , service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied.) This is a significant amendment of the former Section 14 of said rule which previously provided:

47

Sec. 14. Service upon private foreign corporations. If the defendant is a foreign corporation, or a nonresident joint stock company or association, doing business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied.) The coverage of the present rule is thus broader. 30 Secondly, the service of summons to petitioner through the DFA by the conveyance of the summons to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney, Australia was clearly made not through the above-quoted Section 12, but pursuant to Section 15 of the same rule which provides: Sec. 15. Extraterritorial service. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. Respondent argues31 that extraterritorial service of summons upon foreign private juridical entities is not proscribed under the Rules of Court, and is in fact within the authority of the trial court to adopt, in accordance with Section 6, Rule 135: Sec. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears comformable to the spirit of said law or rules. Section 15, Rule 14, however, is the specific provision dealing precisely with the service of summons on a defendant which does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, while Rule 135 (which is in Part V of the Rules of Court entitled Legal Ethics) concerns the general powers and duties of courts and judicial officers. Breaking down Section 15, Rule 14, it is apparent that there are only four instances wherein a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service, to wit: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property, within the Philippines, in which the defendant claims a lien or an interest, actual or

contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; and (4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the Philippines. In these instances, service of summons may be effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.32 Proceeding from this enumeration, we held in Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation33that: Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam. When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant. The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.34 (Emphases supplied.) In Domagas v. Jensen,35 we held that: [T]he aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him.36 It is likewise settled that "[a]n action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject that persons interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation." 37

48

The Complaint in the case at bar is an action to declare the loan and Hedging Contracts between the parties void with a prayer for damages . It is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to be freed from its obligations to the defendant under a contract and to hold said defendant pecuniarily liable to the plaintiff for entering into such contract. It is therefore an action in personam, unless and until the plaintiff attaches a property within the Philippines belonging to the defendant, in which case the action will be converted to one quasi in rem. Since the action involved in the case at bar is in personam and since the defendant, petitioner Rothschild/Investec, does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, the Philippine courts cannot try any case against it because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over its person unless it voluntarily appears in court. 38 In this regard, respondent vigorously argues that petitioner should be held to have voluntarily appeared before the trial court when it prayed for, and was actually afforded, specific reliefs from the trial court.39 Respondent points out that while petitioners Motion to Dismiss was still pending, petitioner prayed for and was able to avail of modes of discovery against respondent, such as written interrogatories, requests for admission, deposition, and motions for production of documents.40 Petitioner counters that under this Courts ruling in the leading case of La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,41 a party may file a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person, and at the same time raise affirmative defenses and pray for affirmative relief, without waiving its objection to the acquisition of jurisdiction over its person.42 It appears, however, that petitioner misunderstood our ruling in La Naval. A close reading of La Naval reveals that the Court intended a distinction between the raising of affirmative defenses in an Answer (which would not amount to acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court) and the prayer for affirmative reliefs (which would be considered acquiescence to the jurisdiction of the court): In the same manner that a plaintiff may assert two or more causes of action in a court suit, a defendant is likewise expressly allowed, under Section 2, Rule 8, of the Rules of Court, to put up his own defenses alternatively or even hypothetically. Indeed, under Section 2, Rule 9, of the Rules of Court, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in an answer, except for the failure to state a cause of action, are deemed waived. We take this to mean that a defendant may, in fact, feel enjoined to set up, along with his objection to the court's jurisdiction over his person, all other possible defenses. It thus appears that it is not the invocation of any of such defenses, but the failure to so raise them, that can result in waiver or estoppel. By defenses, of course, we refer to the grounds provided for in Rule 16 of the Rules of Court that must be asserted in a motion to dismiss or by way of affirmative defenses in an answer. Mindful of the foregoing, in Signetics Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Freuhauf Electronics Phils., Inc. (225 SCRA 737, 738), we lately ruled:

"This is not to say, however, that the petitioner's right to question the jurisdiction of the court over its person is now to be deemed a foreclosed matter. If it is true, as Signetics claims, that its only involvement in the Philippines was through a passive investment in Sigfil, which it even later disposed of, and that TEAM Pacific is not its agent, then it cannot really be said to be doing business in the Philippines. It is a defense, however, that requires the contravention of the allegations of the complaint, as well as a full ventilation, in effect, of the main merits of the case, which should not thus be within the province of a mere motion to dismiss. So, also, the issue posed by the petitioner as to whether a foreign corporation which has done business in the country, but which has ceased to do business at the time of the filing of a complaint, can still be made to answer for a cause of action which accrued while it was doing business, is another matter that would yet have to await the reception and admission of evidence. Since these points have seasonably been raised by the petitioner, there should be no real cause for what may understandably be its apprehension, i.e., that by its participation during the trial on the merits, it may, absent an invocation of separate or independent reliefs of its own, be considered to have voluntarily submitted itself to the court's jurisdiction."43 (Emphases supplied.) In order to conform to the ruling in La Naval, which was decided by this Court in 1994, the former Section 23, Rule 1444 concerning voluntary appearance was amended to include a second sentence in its equivalent provision in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: SEC. 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Emphasis supplied.) The new second sentence, it can be observed, merely mentions other grounds in a Motion to Dismiss aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. This clearly refers to affirmative defenses, rather than affirmative reliefs. Thus, while mindful of our ruling in La Naval and the new Section 20, Rule 20, this Court, in several cases, ruled that seeking affirmative relief in a court is tantamount to voluntary appearance therein.45 Thus, in Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Dy Hong Pi,46 wherein defendants filed a "Motion for Inhibition without submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court" subsequent to their filing of a "Motion to Dismiss (for Lack of Jurisdiction)," we held: Besides, any lingering doubts on the issue of voluntary appearance dissipate when the respondents' motion for inhibition is considered. This motion seeks a sole relief: inhibition of Judge Napoleon Inoturan from further hearing the case. Evidently, by seeking affirmative relief other than dismissal of the case, respondents manifested their voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning the court's jurisdiction.47 (Emphasis supplied.)
1wphi1

49

In view of the above, we therefore rule that petitioner, by seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court, is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of said court. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.48 Consequently, the trial court cannot be considered to have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the denial of the Motion to Dismiss on account of failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 8, 2006 and its Resolution dated December 12, 2006 in CAG.R. SP No. 94382 are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

50

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 192828 November 28, 2011

[a] Writ of Preliminary Injunction," was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-105251 and raffled to Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC). In the Complaint, the respondents alleged the following as causes of action: First Cause of Action. They are the heirs of Lim San, also known as Antonio Ching / Tiong Cheng / Ching Cheng Suy (Antonio). Respondents Joseph Cheng (Joseph) and Jaime Cheng (Jaime) are allegedly the children of Antonio with his common-law wife, respondent Mercedes Igne (Mercedes). Respondent Lucina Santos (Lucina) claimed that she was also a common-law wife of Antonio. The respondents averred that Ramon misrepresented himself as Antonio's and Lucina's son when in truth and in fact, he was adopted and his birth certificate was merely simulated. On July 18, 1996, Antonio died of a stab wound. Police investigators identified Ramon as the prime suspect and he now stands as the lone accused in a criminal case for murder filed against him. Warrants of arrest issued against him have remained unserved as he is at large. From the foregoing circumstances and upon the authority of Article 919 7 of the New Civil Code (NCC), the respondents concluded that Ramon can be legally disinherited, hence, prohibited from receiving any share from the estate of Antonio. Second Cause of Action. On August 26, 1996, prior to the conclusion of the police investigations tagging Ramon as the prime suspect in the murder of Antonio, the former made an inventory of the latter's estate. Ramon misrepresented that there were only six real estate properties left by Antonio. The respondents alleged that Ramon had illegally transferred to his name the titles to the said properties. Further, there are two other parcels of land, cash and jewelries, plus properties in Hongkong, which were in Ramon's possession. Third Cause of Action. Mercedes, being of low educational attainment, was sweet-talked by Ramon into surrendering to him a Global Business Bank, Inc. (Global Bank) Certificate of Time Deposit ofP4,000,000.00 in the name of Antonio, and the certificates of title covering two condominium units in Binondo which were purchased by Antonio using his own money but which were registered in Ramon's name. Ramon also fraudulently misrepresented to Joseph, Jaime and Mercedes that they will promptly receive their complete shares, exclusive of the stocks in Po Wing Properties, Inc. (Po Wing), from the estate of Antonio. Exerting undue influence, Ramon had convinced them to execute an Agreement8 and a Waiver9on August 20, 1996. The terms and conditions stipulated in the Agreement and Waiver, specifically, on the payment by Ramon to Joseph, Jaime and Mercedes of the amount of P22,000,000.00, were not complied with. Further, Lucina was not informed of the execution of the said instruments and had not received any amount from Ramon. Hence, the instruments are null and void. Fourth Cause of Action. Antonio's 40,000 shares in Po Wing, which constitute 60% of the latter's total capital stock, were illegally transferred by Ramon to his own name through a forged document of sale executed after Antonio died. Po 51

RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND LUCINA SANTOS, substituted by her son, EDUARDO S. BALAJADIA, Respondents. RESOLUTION REYES, J.: The Case Before us is a Petition for Review on C ertiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the December 14, 2009 Decision 2 and July 8, 2010 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 99856. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DENYING the petition filed in this case and AFFIRMING the assailed Orders dated March 15, 2007 and May 16, 2007 issued by the respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, in Manila in Civil Case No. 02-105251.4 The assailed Resolution denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. The Factual Antecedents Sometime between November 25, 2002 and December 3, 2002,5 the respondents filed a Complaint6 against the petitioners and Stronghold Insurance Company, Global Business Bank, Inc. (formerly PhilBank), Elena Tiu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic Resources Ventures, Inc., Registers of Deeds of Manila and Malabon, and all persons claiming rights or titles from Ramon Ching (Ramon) and his successors-in-interest. The Complaint, captioned as one for " Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of Agreement and Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title with Prayer for [the] Issuance of [a] Temporary Restraining Order and

Wing owns a ten-storey building in Binondo. Ramon's claim that he bought the stocks from Antonio before the latter died is baseless. Further, Lucina's shares in Po Wing had also banished into thin air through Ramon's machinations. Fifth Cause of Action. On October 29, 1996, Ramon executed an Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate10 adjudicating solely to himself Antonio's entire estate to the prejudice of the respondents. By virtue of the said instrument, new Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) covering eight real properties owned by Antonio were issued in Ramon's name. Relative to the Po Wing shares, the Register of Deeds of Manila had required Ramon to post a Surety Bond conditioned to answer for whatever claims which may eventually surface in connection with the said stocks. Co-defendant Stronghold Insurance Company issued the bond in Ramon's behalf. Sixth Cause of Action. Ramon sold Antonio's two parcels of land in Navotas to co-defendant Asia Atlantic Business Ventures, Inc. Another parcel of land, which was part of Antonio's estate, was sold by Ramon to co-defendant Elena Tiu Del Pilar at an unreasonably low price. By reason of Ramon's lack of authority to dispose of any part of Antonio's estate, the conveyances are null and void ab initio. Since Ramon is at large, his wife, Belen Dy Tan Ching, now manages Antonio's estate. She has no intent to convey to the respondents their shares in the estate of Antonio. The respondents thus prayed for the following in their Complaint: 1. x x x a temporary restraining order be issued restraining the defendant RAMON CHING and/or his attorney-in-fact Belen Dy Tan Ching from disposing, selling or alienating any property that belongs to the estate of the deceased ANTONIO CHING; xxx 4. x x x a.) Declaring that the defendant RAMON CHING who murdered his father ANTONIO CHING disqualified as heir and from inheriting to (sic) the estate of his father; b.) Declaring the nullity of the defendant RAMON CHING transfer (sic) of the six [6] parcels of land from the name of his father ANTONIO CHING to his name covered by TCT No. x x x; c.) Declaring the nullity of the AGREEMENT and WAIVER executed by plaintiffs x x x in favor of x x x RAMON CHING for being patently immoral, invalid, illegal, simulated and (sic) sham;

d.) Declaring the nullity of the transfer of the shares of stocks at (sic) PO WING from the names of ANTONIO CHING and LUCINA SANTOS to the defendant ANTONIO CHING's name for having been illegally procured through the falsification of their signatures in the document purporting the transfer thereof; e.) Declaring the nullity and to have no force and effect the AFFIDAVIT OF SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE executed by x x x RAMON CHING for being contrary to law and existing jurisprudence; f.) Declaring the nullity of the DEED OF SALES (sic) executed by x x x RAMON CHING (i) over two (2) parcels of land x x x to defendant ASIA ATLANTIC BUSINESS VENTURES, Inc.; and (ii) one (1) parcel of land x x x sold to x x x ELENA TIU DEL PILAR for having illegally procured the ownership and titles of the above properties; x x x.11 The petitioners filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss12 alleging forum shopping, litis pendentia, res judicata and the respondents as not being the real parties in interest. On July 30, 2004, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order 13 denying the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss. The respondents filed an Amended Complaint 14 dated April 7, 2005 impleading Metrobank as the successor-in-interest of co-defendant Global Bank. The Amended Complaint also added a seventh cause of action relative to the existence of a Certificate of Premium Plus Acquisition (CPPA) in the amount of P4,000,000.00 originally issued by PhilBank to Antonio. The respondents prayed that they be declared as the rightful owners of the CPPA and that it be immediately released to them. Alternatively, the respondents prayed for the issuance of a hold order relative to the CPPA to preserve it during the pendency of the case. On April 22, 2005, the petitioners filed their Consolidated Answer with Counterclaim. 15 On October 28, 2005, the RTC issued an Order 16 admitting the respondents' Amended Complaint. The RTC stressed that Metrobank had already filed Manifestations admitting that as successor-in-interest of Global Bank, it now possesses custody of Antonio's deposits. Metrobank expressed willingness to abide by any court order as regards the disposition of Antonio's deposits. The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration filed to assail the aforecited Order was denied by the RTC on May 3, 2006. On May 29, 2006, the petitioners filed their Consolidated Answer with Counterclaim to the respondents' Amended Complaint. On August 11, 2006, the RTC issued a pre-trial order.17

52

On January 18, 2007, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss 18 the respondents' Amended Complaint on the alleged ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint. The petitioners argued that since the Amended Complaint sought the release of the CPPA to the respondents, the latter's declaration as heirs of Antonio, and the propriety of Ramon's disinheritance, the suit partakes of the nature of a special proceeding and not an ordinary action for declaration of nullity. Hence, jurisdiction pertains to a probate or intestate court and not to the RTC acting as an ordinary court. On March 15, 2007, the RTC issued an Order 19 denying the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss on grounds: In the case at bar, an examination of the Complaint would disclose that the action delves mainly on the question of ownership of the properties described in the Complaint which can be properly settled in an ordinary civil action. And as pointed out by the defendants, the action seeks to declare the nullity of the Agreement, Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title, which were all allegedly executed by defendant Ramon Ching to defraud the plaintiffs. The relief of establishing the status of the plaintiffs which could have translated this action into a special proceeding was nowhere stated in the Amended Complaint. With regard [to] the prayer to declare the plaintiffs as the rightful owner[s] of the CPPA and that the same be immediately released to them, in itself poses an issue of ownership which must be proved by plaintiffs by substantial evidence . And as emphasized by the plaintiffs, the Amended Complaint was intended to implead Metrobank as a co-defendant. As regards the issue of disinheritance, the court notes that during the Pre-trial of this case, one of the issues raised by the defendants Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties is: Whether or not there can be disinheritance in intestate succession? Whether or not defendant Ramon Ching can be legally disinherited from the estate of his father? To the mind of the Court, the issue of disinheritance, which is one of the causes of action in the Complaint, can be fully settled after a trial on the merits. And at this stage, it has not been sufficiently established whether or not there is a will.20 (Emphasis supplied.) The above Order, and a subsequent Order dated May 16, 2007 denying the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, became the subjects of a petition for certiorari filed with the CA. The petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 99856, raised the issue of whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it denied the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss despite the fact that the Amended Complaint sought to establish the status or rights of the respondents which subjects are within the ambit of a special proceeding. On December 14, 2009, the CA rendered the now assailed Decision 21 denying the petition for certiorari on grounds: Our in-depth assessment of the condensed allegations supporting the causes of action of the amended complaint induced us to infer that nothing in the said complaint shows that the action of the private respondents should be threshed out in a special proceeding, it appearing that their allegations were substantially for the enforcement of their rights against the alleged fraudulent acts committed by the

petitioner Ramon Ching. The private respondents also instituted the said amended complaint in order to protect them from the consequence of the fraudulent acts of Ramon Ching by seeking to disqualify Ramon Ching from inheriting from Antonio Ching as well as to enjoin him from disposing or alienating the subject properties, including the P4 Million deposit with Metrobank. The intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such issues, which must be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a regional trial court. Furthermore, we agree with the trial court that the probate court could not take cognizance of the prayer to disinherit Ramon Ching, given the undisputed fact that there was no will to be contested in a probate court. The petition at bench apparently cavils the subject amended complaint and complicates the issue of jurisdiction by reiterating the grounds or defenses set up in the petitioners' earlier pleadings. Notwithstanding, the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint without regard to whether or not the private respondents (plaintiffs) are entitled to recover upon all or some of the causes of action asserted therein. In this regard, the jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defenses pleaded in the answer or in the motion to dismiss, lest the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the petitioners (defendants).22 Hence, we focus our resolution on the issue of jurisdiction on the allegations in the amended complaint and not on the defenses pleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the subsequent pleadings of the petitioners. In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject the action of the petitioners in a special proceeding since the nullification of the subject documents could be achieved in the civil case, the lower court should proceed to evaluate the evidence of the parties and render a decision thereon upon the issues that it defined during the pre-trial in Civil Case No. 02105251.23(emphasis supplied) The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA through a Resolution24 issued on July 8, 2010. The Issue The instant Petition for Review on Certiorari25 is anchored on the issue of: Whether or not the RTC should have granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the PETITIONERS on the alleged ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Amended Complaint, to wit, (a) filiations with Antonio of Ramon, Jaime and Joseph; (b) rights of common-law wives, Lucina and Mercedes, to be considered as heirs of Antonio; (c) determination of the extent of Antonio's estate; and (d) other matters which can only be resolved in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action. The petitioners argue that only a probate court has the authority to determine (a) who are the heirs of a decedent; (b) the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights; (c) the status of each heir; and (d) whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or the exclusive property of the deceased spouse.26 Further, the extent of Antonio's estate, the status of the 53

contending parties and the respondents' alleged entitlement as heirs to receive the proceeds of Antonio's CPPA now in Metrobank's custody are matters which are more appropriately the subjects of a special proceeding and not of an ordinary civil action. The respondents opposed27 the instant petition claiming that the petitioners are engaged in forum shopping. Specifically, G.R. Nos. 175507 28 and 183840,29 both involving the contending parties in the instant petition were filed by the petitioners and are currently pending before this Court. Further, in Mendoza v. Hon. Teh,30 the SC declared that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction, is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure. Besides, the petitioners, having validly submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the RTC and having actively participated in the trial of the case, are already estopped from challenging the RTC's jurisdiction over the respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint.31 The Court's Ruling We resolve to deny the instant petition. The petitioners failed to comply with a lawful order of this Court directing them to file their reply to the respondents' Comment/Opposition to the instant Petition. While the prescribed period to comply expired on March 15, 2011, the petitioners filed their Manifestation that they will no longer file a reply only on October 10, 2011 or after the lapse of almost seven months. Further, no reversible errors were committed by the RTC and the CA when they both ruled that the denial of the petitioners' second motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 02-105251 was proper. Even without delving into the procedural allegations of the respondents that the petitioners engaged in forum shopping and are already estopped from questioning the RTC's jurisdiction after having validly submitted to it when the latter participated in the proceedings, the denial of the instant Petition is still in order. Although the respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint sought, among others, the disinheritance of Ramon and the release in favor of the respondents of the CPPA now under Metrobank's custody, Civil Case No. 02-105251 remains to be an ordinary civil action, and not a special proceeding pertaining to a settlement court. An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.32 A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. 33 It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.34 To initiate a special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed.

Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. This Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that while the respondents in their Complaint and Amended Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was ever mentioned. Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's disinheritance, Civil Case No. 02-105251 does not partake of the nature of a special proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of its limited jurisdiction. The petitioners also argue that the prayers in the Amended Complaint, seeking the release in favor of the respondents of the CPPA under Metrobank's custody and the nullification of the instruments subject of the complaint, necessarily require the determination of the respondents' status as Antonio's heirs. It bears stressing that what the respondents prayed for was that they be declared as the rightful owners of the CPPA which was in Mercedes' possession prior to the execution of the Agreement and Waiver. The respondents also prayed for the alternative relief of securing the issuance by the RTC of a hold order relative to the CPPA to preserve Antonio's deposits with Metrobank during the pendency of the case. It can thus be said that the respondents' prayer relative to the CPPA was premised on Mercedes' prior possession of and their alleged collective ownership of the same, and not on the declaration of their status as Antonio's heirs. Further, it also has to be emphasized that the respondents were parties to the execution of the Agreement35 and Waiver36 prayed to be nullified. Hence, even without the necessity of being declared as heirs of Antonio, the respondents have the standing to seek for the nullification of the instruments in the light of their claims that there was no consideration for their execution, and that Ramon exercised undue influence and committed fraud against them. Consequently, the respondents then claimed that the Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Antonios estate executed by Ramon, and the TCTs issued upon the authority of the said affidavit, are null and void as well. Ramon's averment that a resolution of the issues raised shall first require a declaration of the respondents' status as heirs is a mere defense which is not determinative of which court shall properly exercise jurisdiction. In Marjorie Cadimas v. Marites Carrion and Gemma Hugo,37 the Court declared: It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted.
1wphi1

In sum, this Court agrees with the CA that the nullification of the documents subject of Civil Case No. 02-105251 could be achieved in an ordinary civil action, which in this specific case was instituted to protect the respondents from the supposedly fraudulent acts of Ramon. In the event that the RTC will find grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for 54

by the respondents, the only consequence will be the reversion of the properties subject of the dispute to the estate of Antonio. Civil Case No. 02-105251 was not instituted to conclusively resolve the issues relating to the administration, liquidation and distribution of Antonio's estate, hence, not the proper subject of a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person under Rules 73-91 of the Rules of Court. The respondents' resort to an ordinary civil action before the RTC may not be strategically sound, because a settlement proceeding should thereafter still follow, if their intent is to recover from Ramon the properties alleged to have been illegally transferred in his name. Be that as it may, the RTC, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, cannot be restrained from taking cognizance of respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint as the issues raised and the prayers indicated therein are matters which need not be threshed out in a special proceeding. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The petitioners' (a) Opposition to the respondents' Motion to Admit Substitution of Party; 38 and (b) Manifestation39 through counsel that they will no longer file a reply to the respondents' Comment/Opposition to the instant petition are NOTED. SO ORDERED.

55