1. Remedios Antonino filed a complaint against Tan Tian Su to enforce an agreement to sell a residential property owned by Su that Antonino had been leasing. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that Makati was an improper venue and that it lacked jurisdiction due to unpaid fees.
2. The Supreme Court denied Antonino's petition. It found that Antonino's complaint involved a personal action that should have been filed where either party resided, not Makati. It also ruled that the RTC correctly found it lacked jurisdiction for unpaid fees.
3. A petition for annulment of judgment cannot replace an lost appeal. Where a court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, any decisions on
1. Remedios Antonino filed a complaint against Tan Tian Su to enforce an agreement to sell a residential property owned by Su that Antonino had been leasing. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that Makati was an improper venue and that it lacked jurisdiction due to unpaid fees.
2. The Supreme Court denied Antonino's petition. It found that Antonino's complaint involved a personal action that should have been filed where either party resided, not Makati. It also ruled that the RTC correctly found it lacked jurisdiction for unpaid fees.
3. A petition for annulment of judgment cannot replace an lost appeal. Where a court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, any decisions on
1. Remedios Antonino filed a complaint against Tan Tian Su to enforce an agreement to sell a residential property owned by Su that Antonino had been leasing. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that Makati was an improper venue and that it lacked jurisdiction due to unpaid fees.
2. The Supreme Court denied Antonino's petition. It found that Antonino's complaint involved a personal action that should have been filed where either party resided, not Makati. It also ruled that the RTC correctly found it lacked jurisdiction for unpaid fees.
3. A petition for annulment of judgment cannot replace an lost appeal. Where a court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, any decisions on
G.R. No. 185663 June 20, 2012 REYES Doctrine: Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. Facts: Remedios Antonino had been leasing a residential property located at Makati City owned by Private Respondent Tan Tian Su. Under the governing lease contract, Antonino was accorded with the right of first refusal in the event Su would decide to sell the property. On July 7, 2004, the parties executed a document- Undertaking Agreement, where Su agreed to sell to Antonino the property. There is a disagreement as to who would shoulder the payment of capital gains tax, hence the sale did not proceed. Antonino filed a complaint against Su with the RTC of Makati, for the reimbursement of the cost of repairs on the property and payment of damages. Antonino filed an amended complaint to enforce the Undertaking Agreement and to compel Su to sell her the property. RTC dismissed Antoninos complaint on the grounds of improper venue and non-payment of appropriate docket fees. RTC said that Antoninos complaint is a specific performance, damages and sum of money which are personal actions that should have been filed in the court where any of the parties resides. Antonino resides in Muntinlupa, while Su resides in Manila. Hence, Makati is not the proper venue according to RTC. Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, provides that specific performance with damages is a personal action should be tried where the either the plaintiff or the defendant resides. The RTC also ruled that it did not acquire jurisdiction over Antoninos complaint in view of her failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Antonino filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that her complain is a real action and the location of the property is determinative of its venue and there was due observance of the rules on motions, which was subsequently denied by RTC. Antonino filed a motion for annulment of judgment in CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. CA dismissed petition. Issue: 1. WON RTC of Makati is the proper venue. 2. WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case. 3. WON Antonino may use the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment as against the final and executory orders of the RTC. Ruling: The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. 1. No. Antoninos complaint is a personal action such that the proper venue therefore is either the city of Manila or Muntinlupa. 2. RTC of Makati does not have jurisdiction over the case. 3. No. Petition for Annulment of Judgment cannot serve as a substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal. Ratio: 1. Antoninos complaint is one for specific performance, damages, and sum of money, which are personal actions that should have been filed in the court of the place where any of the parties reside. Makati is no the proper venue. 2. The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. 3. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner must show not merely and abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Once a judgment is final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. Only void judgments, by reason of extrinsic fraud or the courts lack of jurisdiction, are susceptible to being annulled. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. Jurisdiction is different from the exercise thereof. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case and not the decision rendered therein (exercise of jurisdiction). Where there is jurisdiction over the
person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction.