Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MATEO
G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004
Facts: Appellant Efren Mateo was charged with ten
counts of rape by his step-daughter Imelda Mateo.
During the trial, Imeldas testimonies regarding the
rape incident were inconsistent. She said in one
occasion that incident of rape happened inside her
bedroom, but other times, she told the court that it
happened in their sala. She also told the court that
the appellant would cover her mouth but when
asked again, she said that he did not. Despite the
irreconcilable testimony of the victim, the trial
court found the accused guilty of the crime of rape
and sentenced him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The Solicitor General assails the factual
findings of the trial and recommends an acquittal of
the
appellant.
Issue: Whether or
appeallable
to
directly
Court.
In
Justice
Facts:
- The petitioner, Reynato S. Puno, was first
appointed as Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals on 1980.
- On 1983, the Court of Appeals was reorganized
and became the Intermediate Appellate Court
pursuant to BP Blg. 129.
- On 1984, petitioner was appointed to be Deputy
Minister of Justice in the Ministry of Justice. Thus,
he ceased to be a member of the Judiciary.
- After February 1986 EDSA Revolution, there was a
reorganization of the entire government, including
the Judiciary.
- A Screening Committee for the reorganization of
the Intermediate Appelate Court and lower courts
recommended the return of petitioner as Associate
Justice of the new court of Appeals and assigned
4. SO ORDERED.
NESTOR
SANDOVAL, petitioner,
vs.
HON. DOROTEO CAEBA, Presiding
Judge, RTC, Manila, Branch 20, DEPUTY
SHERIFF OF MANILA (RTC, Manila, Branch
20),
and
ESTATE
DEVELOPERS
&
INVESTORS CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS:
On August 20, 1987 ESTATE DEVELOPERS &
INVESTORS CORPORATION filed a complaint in
the RTC of Manila for the collection of unpaid
installments regarding a subdivision lot, pursuant
to a promissory note, plus interest. On January 29,
1988 the trial court rendered a decision declaring
the petitioner in default, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, on the
allegations and the
prayer
of
the
complaint
and
the
evidence adduced in
support
therefor,
judgment is hereby
rendered, ordering the
defendant
to
pay
plaintiff the following:
RULING:
The petition is impressed with merit.
Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 957 the
National Housing Authority (NHA) was given the
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide certain
cases as follows:
SEC.1. In the exercise of its function
to regulate the real estate trade and
business and in addition to its
powers provided for in Presidential
Decree No. 957, the National Housing
Authority
shall
have exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
of the following nature:
A. Unsound
practices:
real
estate
business
Facts:
1. Private respondent alleged that she is the
claimowner of 11 mining claims all located
in the province of Zambales.
2. On January 15, 1967, she executed a Special
Power of Attorney constituting her father,
Celestino M. Dizon, as her attorney-in-fact
with full powers to "transfer, assign and
dispose of her 11 mining claims.
3. On January 21, 1967, Celestino M. Dizon,
acting as such attorney-in-fact for private
respondent and other claimowners, entered
into an Agreement, with Dizon Mine
whereby the latter was granted the right to
explore, develop, exploit and operate the 57
mining claims owned by the claimowners
including the 11 claims of private
respondent.
4. Seven (7) years later, on December 17,
1974, private respondent and the other
claimowners executed a Deed of Ratification
of Assignment, confirming the assignment,
transfer and conveyance unto Dizon Mines
and its assigns and successors of the rights
to possess, occupy, explore, develop and
operate all the aforesaid mining claims.
5. Almost three (3) months after the Deed of
Ratification
was
executed,
private
respondent revoked Special Power of
Attorney of January 15, 1967, stating that
"while there is no question that I still have
complete and full trust and confidence in
the judgment and wisdom of my father, it is
not my wish to add any more to his already
many a mounting problems.
(November
Facts:
Private respondent Celestino Villalon filed a
complaint with the RTC of Tagbilaran City against
herein petitioners for collection of back rentals and
damages arising from a leasehold agreement.
Petitioners claim that jurisdiction over the
complaint is vested with the DAR and not the RTC
since the case arose out of agrarian relations.
Petitioners move to dismiss the complaint which
the trial court granted. The RTC also denied the
motion for reconsideration. Respondent sought for
the annulment of both orders, which was granted
by the CA. Thus, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the
complaint.
Held:
No. Section 17 of E.O. 229 vested the DAR with
quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving
implementation of agrarian reform except those
MANCHESTER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, ET AL.,
petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CITY LAND
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
STEPHEN RO
XAS, ANDREW
LUISON, GRACE LUISON and JOSE DE
MAISIP,
respondents.
FACTS:
A complaint for specific performance was filed
by Manchester Development Corporation against
City Land Development Corporation to compel
the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor
Manchester. Manchester also alleged that City Land
forfeited the formers tender of payment for a
certain transaction thereby causing damages to
Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This
amount was alleged in the BODY of their Complaint
but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of same
complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee of
P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on the
allegation of Manchester that their action is
primarily for specific performance hence it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court ruled
that there is an under assessment of docket fees
hence it ordered Manchester to amend its
complaint. Manchester complied but what it did
was to lower the amount of claim for damages
to
P10M. Said amount was however again not stated
in the PRAYER.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the amended complaint should be
admitted.
HELD:
No. The docket fee, its computation, should be
based on the original complaint. A case is
deemed filed only
upon
payment
of
the
appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual
date of filing in court. Here, since the proper
docket fee was not paid for the original complaint,
its as if there is no complaint to speak of. As a
consequence, there is no original complaint
duly filed which can be amended. So, any
10
11
12
13
Question
on
CFI's
14
Moral Damages
300,000
Exemplary Damages
50, 000
Attorneys fees
50, 000
Litigation expenses
20, 000
of
15
DE LA LLANA VS ALBA
FACTS: In 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled
An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating
Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, was
passed. Gualberto De la Llana, a judge in Olongapo,
was assailing its validity because, first of all, he
would be one of the judges that would be removed
because of the reorganization and second, he said
such law would contravene the constitutional
provision which provides the security of tenure of
judges of the courts. He averred that only the
Supreme Court can remove judges NOT the
Congress.
16
17
18
19
20
21
publiciana praying:
1) that judgment be rendered ordering respondent
to vacate the subject lot;
2) that respondent be ordered to pay P15,000.00
per month by way of reasonable compensation
for the use of the lot.
The MeTC ruled in favor of BF Citiland (except rent
was P10K/month), even ordering Bodullo to pay
P20K attys fees & costs of the suit.
The MeTC also issued writ of execution & granted
the motion for special order of demolition.
Merlinda Bodulla filed in the RTC a petition for
certiorari under RULE 65, seeking dismissal of the
case in the MeTC for lack of jurisdiction.
RTC reversed the MeTC case dismissed, for lack of
jurisdiction;
alleging that a suit for accion
publiciana fell under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC.
BF Citiland claimed Bodullon was estopped for
participating in all the proceedings of the MeTC.
Bodullon countered: lack of jurisdiction can be
raised any time.
BF Citiland filed a petition for review under RULE
42: PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
CA dismissed case - saying the proper appeal from
the RTC decision is by way of notice of appeal.
Hence, BF Citiland filed this Petition for Review in
the SC.
ISSUES:
1) What is the proper mode of appeal from the
decision of the RTC?
2) Who has jurisdiction on the accion publiciana
case?
HELD:
1.) Notice of Appeal because the RTC decided
the case in the exercise of its Original Jurisdiction.
i.e. The case filed in the RTC was an Original Action
for Petition for Review on Certiorari under RULE
65.
RULES OF COURT:
RULE 41: APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS
SECTION 2. MODES OF APPEAL -
22
WHEREFORE,
we
GRANT the
23
24
25
26
27
28
29