Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Private respondent's complaint is an action to compel the petitioner to 3. Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738; GR No. 119347, March 17, 1999
remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of Posted by Pius Morados on November 28, 2011
the condominium which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and falls (Civil Procedures – Jurisdiction; Civil actions in which the subject of the
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation)
2. ATTORNEY'S FEES IS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRINCIPAL Facts: Petitioners discovered a public document, which is a declaration of
CAUSE OF ACTION -- removal of the illegal & unauthorized installation of heirs and deed of confirmation of a previous oral agreement, of partition,
the glasses made by the petitioner. the question for resolution is whether or affecting the land executed by and among the respondents whereby
not the petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and Declaration respondents divided the property among themselves to the exclusion of
of Restriction of the corporation, and if so, to remove the illegal and petitioners who are entitled thereto as legal heirs also.
unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of the Condominium. Petitioners filed a complaint, denominated ―DECLARATION OF NULLITY
Clearly, the issue is incapable of pecuniary estimation. AND PARTITION‖ against defendants with the RTC claiming that the
document was false and perjurious as the private respondents were not the
In the instant case, the claim of attorney's fees by the private respondent in only heirs and that no oral partition of the property whatsoever had been
the amount of P10,000.00 is only incidental to its principal cause of action made between the heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be
which is for the removal of the illegal and unauthorized installation of the declared null and void and an order be issued to partition the land among all
glasses made by the petitioner and therefore, said amount is not the heirs.
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of
3. THE COMPLAINT IS NOT MANDATORY INJUNCTION, IT IS MERELY A the subject land is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) of Batas
PROVISIONAL REMEDY. Note should be taken, however, that the trial Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, falls within the
court had erroneously considered the complaint as one for mandatory exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
injunction, misled perhaps by the caption of the complaint. Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the RTC
A writ for mandatory injunction is a provisional remedy. It is provisional has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of
because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency pecuniary estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129,
of the main action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is as amended.
dependent upon the result of the main action.
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the nature of the civil case.
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition for certiorari & prohibition dismissed. Held: Yes. The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is one
incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said
NOTE: court.
―In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, the Supreme Court ruled that:
capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
courts [now municipal trial courts] or in the courts of first instance [now capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal
courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the Issue # 1:
claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to Whether MTC had jurisdiction over first exprop case:
recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such
Held: No. Exprop suit does not involve sum of money. It is incapable of
actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the RTC (Section 19 of BP
(now Regional Trial Courts). 129 as amended by RA 7691).
The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and - The primary consideration of exprop proceedings is whether the gov't
void the document in question. While the complaint also prays for the has complied with the requisites for the taking or property.
partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the - An exprop suit is within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the
declaration of nullity of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that value of the land.
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the Issue # 2:
claims asserted therein. Whether the dismissal of the first complaint in the MTC amounts to res
judicata?
4. Bardillon v. Brgy. Masili
Held: NO
Nature: - Requisites for res judicata
Petition for review under Rule 45 1. Former judgment must be final.
2. Court which rendered judgment must have jurisdiction over the subject
Facts: matter and the parties.
- Brgy Masili in Calamba Laguna wanted a lot on which a multi-purpose hall 3. Judgment is on the merits.
will be constructed, so it offered to buy Bardillon's 144 sq. m. lot for Php 4. Identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action in both actions.
200,000. - Since MTC had no jurisdiction, there is no res judicata.
- No agreement was reached.
- Feb. 23, 1998: The first complaint for eminent domain was filed before the Issue # 3:
Calamba MTC by Brgy. Masili against Bardillon. Whether CA erred when it ignored the RTC's issuance of a writ of
- MTC dismissed for Bardillon and counsel's failure to appear at pre-trial. possession despite the pending MR of the ruling dismissing the complaint.
MTC denied Masili's Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
- Oct 18, 1999: The second complaint for eminent domain was filed with the Held: NO
Calamba RTC by Masili. - Requisites of immediate entry:
- Bardillon opposed the complaint thru Motion to Dismiss, alleging res 1. filing of a complaint for exprop sufficient in form and substance
judicata. 2. deposit of amount equivalent to 15% of the property's fair market value
- RTC denied motion to dismiss, saying that MTC had no jurisdiction over based on its current tax declaration.
the first complaint. - Masili complied with both requisites.
- July 10, 2000: Municipal Ordinance authorizing Masili to initiate exprop - The issue of necessity of the exprop is a matter that should be addressed
proceedings was approved and submitted. by the RTC. If petitioner objects to the necessity, her objection should be
- Aug 16, 2000: RTC issued writ of possession. included in her Answer to the complaint.
- Bardillon appealed to the CA. CA affirned RTC.
- No res judicata. MTC had no jurisdiction over the first complaint. Issue # 4: Whether or not Masili is guilty of forum shopping?
Verily, what determines the nature of the action and which court has
Held: NO jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of
the relief sought.
- Test for determining forum shopping: whether the elements of litis The complaint, albeit entitled as one for collection of a sum of
pendentia are present in two or more cases, such that a final judgment in money with damages, is one incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus,
one case will amount to res judicata in another. one within the RTC's jurisdiction. The allegations therein show that it
- The earlier case in the MTC had already been dismissed when the second is actually for breach of contract. A case for breach of contract is a
complaint was filed in the RTC. cause of action either for specific performance or rescission of contracts.
- Even if the MTC case was still pending, it will make no difference, because An action for rescission of contract, as a counterpart of an action for specific
the MTC had no jurisdiction in the first place. performance, is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore falls under
Dispo: the jurisdiction of the RTC. The averments in the complaint show that
Petition denied. CA affirmed. Payoyo sought the cancellation of the contracts and refund of the down
payments since Villena failed to comply with the obligation to deliver the
5. VILLENA vs. PAYOYO (April 27, 2007) appliances and install the kitchen cabinets subject of the contracts. While
the respondent prayed for the refund, this is just incidental to the main
FACTS: Payoyo and Novaline, Inc., through its president, Villena, entered action, which is the rescission or cancellation of the contracts.
into a contract for the delivery and installation of kitchen cabinets in Petition DENIED.
Payoyo's residence. The cabinets were to be delivered within 90 days from
down payment of 50% of the purchase price. A down payment was paid. 6. Lu vs. Lu Ym, Sr.,et al
Another contract was entered into for the delivery of home appliances and
Villena also paid the downpayment. Villena faled to install the kitchen 7. De Ungria et al. vs. Court of Appeals
cabinets and deliver the appliances. G.R. No. 165777 | July 25, 2011
Payoyo filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money and
damages against Villena. Petitioner posits that the RTC has no jurisdiction FACTS:
over the complaint since it is mainly for recovery of a sum of money in the This is a petition for review on certiorari for ownership, possession and
amount of P184,821.50 which is below the jurisdictional amount set for damages, and alternative causes of action either to declare two documents
RTCs. as patent nullities, and/or for recovery of Rosario's conjugal share with
damages or redemption of the subject land against petitioner Ceferina de
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the case Ungria et al.Respondent Rosario is the surviving wife of the late Fernando
Castor, while the rest of the respondents are their legitimate children. The
RULING: YES, RTC has jurisdiction. In determining the jurisdiction of an documents they (respondents) sought to annul are (1) the Deed of
action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the Transfer of Rights and Interest including Improvements thereon allegedly
principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily executed by Fernando in favor of Eugenio de Ungria, petitioner's father; and
for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of (2) the Affidavit of Relinquishment executed by Eugenio in favor of
pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the court depends on the petitioner. Petitioner also filed an Addendum to the Motion to Dismiss
amount of the claim. But, where the primary issue is something other than raising, among others that the court has no jurisdiction over the case for
the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely failure of plaintiffs to pay the filing fee in full. Pending resolution
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, such are of the motion, respondents filed a Motion to Allow them to continue
actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence prosecuting this case as indigent litigants. Petitioner filed a motion for
cognizable by the RTCs. reconsideration and clarification on whether plaintiffs should be allowed to
continue prosecuting the case as indigent litigants. Said motion was complaint. Jurisdiction once acquired is never lost, it continues until the case
denied. The same was filed to the RTC and to the CA; both were denied. is terminated
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari where petitioner raises the
following assignment of error: that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding 8. HILARIO vs. SALVADOR
that respondent RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying G.R. No. 160384 . April 29, 2005, CALLEJO, SR. , J .
petitioner‘s Motion to Dismiss despite respondent‘s non-payment of
the correct docket fees. FACTS: Petitioners herein are co-owners of a parcel of land located
in Romblon. In 1996, they filed a complaint with the RTC of Romblon
ISSUE: against herein, respondent, alleging that as co-owners, they are entitled to
Was jurisdiction vested to the RTC in this civil case despite the failure of the possession of the lot, and that respondent constructed his house thereon
plaintiff to file the necessary docket fees? without their knowledge and refused to vacate the property despite
demands to do so. They prayed for the private respondent to vacate the
RULING: property and restore possession thereof to them. The complaint, however,
YES. It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that when an action is filed in failed to allege the assessed value of the land. Nevertheless, petitioners
court, the complaint must be accompanied by the payment of the requisite were able to present during the trial the most recent tax declaration, which
docket and filing fees. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or shows that the assessed value of the property was Php 5,950.00.
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
that vests atrial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the jurisdiction because of the failure to allege the value of the land. The motion
action.Section 7(b)(1) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides:SEC. 7. was denied.
Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. - (a) For filing an action or a permissive Respondent then filed an Answer, traversing the material allegations of the
counter-claim or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or complaint, contending that petitioners had no cause of action against him
for filing with leave of court a third-party, fourth-party,etc. complaint, or a since the property in dispute was the conjugal property of his grandparents,
complaint-in-intervention, and for all clerical services in the same, if the the spouses Salustiano Salvador and Concepcion Mazo-Salvador.
total-sum claimed, exclusive of interest, or the stated value of the property in The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, the CA reversed the
litigation, is:x x x x(b) For filing:1. Actions where the value of the subject decision, holding that the action was one for the recovery of ownership and
matter cannot be estimated ........ P400.00 possession of real property, and that ―absent any allegation in the complaint
of the assessed value of the property, the MTC had exclusive jurisdiction
2. x x xIn a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is over the action‖ (citing Sec. 33 of R.A. No. 7691). The CA then ordered the
none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall refiling of the case in the proper court.
be the basis in computing the fees.
ISSUES: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the action
Since we find that the case involved the annulment of contract which is not
susceptible of pecuniary estimation, thus, falling within the jurisdiction of the HELD: NO. Petitioner argues that the RTC has jurisdiction since their action
RTC, the docket fees should not be based on the assessed value of the is an accion reivindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
subject land as claimed by petitioner in their memorandum, but should be Thus, regardless of the assessed value of the subject property, exclusive
based on Section 7(b)(1) of Rule 141. A perusal of the entries in the Legal jurisdiction falls within the said court. This argument is without merit.
Fees Form attached to the records would reflect that the amount of P400.00 The jurisdiction of the court over an action involving title to or possession of
was paid to the Clerk of Court, together with the other fees, as assessed by land is now determined by the assessed value of the said property and not
the Clerk of Court. Thus, upon respondents' proof of payment of the the market value thereof. […] In the case at bar, the complaint does not
assessed fees, the RTC has properly acquired jurisdiction over the
contain an allegation stating the assessed value of the property subject of The Supreme Court finally held that all proceedings before the RTC,
the complaint. The court cannot take judicial including the RTC decision, are null and void, since the RTC had no
notice of the assessed or market value of land. The Court noted that during jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners.
the trial, the petitioners adduced in evidence at ax de c l a r a t ion,
showing that the assessed value of the property in 1991 was Php5,950.00. Criticism of the ponencia: The discussion about the distinction between an
The petitioners, however, did not bother to adduce in evidence the tax accion reivindicatoria and an accion publiciana is inappropriate. The issue to
declaration containing the assessed value of the property when they filed be resolved by the court is: which court has jurisdiction, the MTC or the
their complaint in 1996. Even assuming that the assessed value of the RTC? It is immaterial whether the case is one for accion reivindicatoria or
property in 1991 was the same in 1995 or 1996, the MTC, and not the RTC accion publiciana; only one court will have exclusive jurisdiction. I submit
had jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners, since the case involved that what should have been discussed in the obiter is that if the claim of co-
title to or possession of real property with an assessed value of less than ownership by the defendant is true, may a plaintiff co-owner then file an
Php20,000.00. As the Court of Appeals had held: action in ejectment against another co-owner?
―The determining jurisdictional element for the accion reinvindicatoria [sic] is,
as RA 7691 discloses, the assessed value of the property in question. Dr. Tolentino is of the opinion that a co-owner may bring such an action
For properties in the provinces, the RTC has jurisdiction if the assessed against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession of and asset
value exceeds Php20,000.00, and the MTC, if the value is Php20,000.00 or ownership in himself alone. The effect of the action will be to obtain
below. An assessed value can have reference only to the tax rolls in the recognition of the co-ownership.
municipality where the property is located, and is contained in the tax
declaration. In the case at bench, the most recent tax declaration secured The defendant co-owner, however, cannot be excluded from possession
and presented by the plaintiffs-appellees is Exhibit B. The loose remark because as co-owner, he also has the right to possess.
made by them that the property was worth 3.5 million pesos, not to mention
that there is absolutely no evidence for this, is irrelevant in the light of the 9. San Pedro vs. Asdala
fact that there is an assessed value. It is the amount in the tax declaration
that should be consulted and no other kind of value, and as appearing in 10. Maslag vs. Monzon et al
Exhibit B, this is Php5,950.00. The case, therefore, falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Romblon which has 11. Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. Cyborg
jurisdiction over the territory where the property is located, and not the court Leasing Corp.
a quo. 24‖
Facts:
In an obiter, the Court discussed the nature of an accion publiciana, thus:
Cyborg Leasing Corp filed before the MTC of Manila a case captioned
―The action of the petitioners was an accion publiciana, or one for the
"Damages with prayer for a writ Replevin" against Conpac and Movers.
recovery of possession of the real property subject matter thereof. It does
It was alleged that pursuant toa lease agreement, Cyborg had delivered
not involve a claim of ownership over the property. An accion
one forklift to Conpac. The lease agreement stipulated a monthly rental
reinvindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession
over the real property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership and
of P11,000.00 for the use of the equipment. Conpac failed and refused
possession based on the said ownership. On the other hand, an accion to pay the stipulated rentals. Petitioner took control of the operations of
publiciana is one for the recovery of pos session of the right to possess. It is Conpac and seized all the cargoes and equipment in ludi g the subject
also referred to as an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year porklift. Petitioner ignored Cyborg's demand for the return to it of the
after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding equipment and the formal disclaimer of ownership made by Conpac. A
of possession of the realty. […]‖ Writ of Replevin was issued. Petitioner was served with a copy of the
summons and the latter filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the of MTC since the complaint had Petitioners filed their answer with counterclaim. After pre-trial
asked for the actual market value of the equipment, actual conference, trial on the merits ensued. After the respondent rested his
damage,,exemplary damages and atty's fees. MTC dismissed the case, petitioners testified in their defense. Subsequently, petitioners filed
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Cyborg filed a petition for certiorari and a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
prohibition with preliminary injuction against MTC Judge, COnpac and matter. They alleged that since the principal amount prayed for, in the
Movers before the RTC f Manila. RTC granted Cyborg's application for amount of P71,392.00, falls within the jurisdiction of MTC. Petitioners
preliminary injunction. Petitioner assails the decision of RTC. Hence this maintain that the court’s jurisdiction should be based exclusively on the
petition. amount of actual damages, excluding therefrom the amounts claimed as
moral, exemplary, nominal damages and attorney’s fee, etc.
Issue: WON, MTC has jurisdiction over the complaint?
The respondent opposed the motion saying that since the claim for
Held: NO! damages is the main action, the totality of the damages sought to be
MTC's jurisdiction over the action filed by Cyborg is the concern of the recovered should be considered in determining jurisdiction. He relied on
case. Administrative Circular No. 09-94 which provides that “in cases where
The jurisdiction of the court and the nature of the action must be determi the claim for damages is the main cause of action. . . the amount of
ned by theaverments in the complaints and the character of the relief such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the
sought. The complaint filed by Cyborg with the MTC prayed for the court” Also, the petitioners’ defense of lack of jurisdiction has already
return of the Nissan Forklift to it as the owner or in the alternative for the been barred by estoppel and laches. He contends that after actively
payment of 150T plus damages, amount of unpaid lease and atty's fees. taking part in the trial proceedings and presenting a witness to seek
It would be incorrect to argue that the actual damages in the form of exoneration, it would be unfair and legally improper for petitioners to
unpaid rentals were just in incident of the action for the return of the seek the dismissal of the case.
forklift considering that private respondent specifically sought in the
complaint not only seizure of the forklift from petitioner Movers but also RTC ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioners filed an MR which was
payment of unpaid and outstanding rentals. MTC's dismissing the denied. Subsequently, they filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.
complaint was properly decreed, Petition for review is granted.
Issues: (1) Whether petitioners are barred from raising the defense of
12. Mangaliag v. Pastoral the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction? NO
(2) Whether it is the amount of P71,392.00 as medical expenses,
Facts: Respondent Serquina filed a complaint for damages with the excluding moral, nominal damages and attorney’s fees, which
RTC against petitioners Mangaliag and Solano. This complaint alleges determines jurisdiction, hence it is MTC which has jurisdiction? NO
that the Serquina and his co-passengers sustained serious injuries and
permanent deformities from the collision of their tricycle with the Ruling:
petitioners’ dump truck and the gross negligence, carelessness and (1) On the matter of estoppel and laches: In the present case, no
imprudence of the petitioners in driving the dump truck. Respondents judgment has yet been rendered by the RTC. As a matter of
seek damages in the form of medical expenses amounting to fact, as soon as the petitioners discovered the alleged
P71,392.00. Respondents also claim P500,000.00 by way of moral jurisdictional defect, they did not fail or neglect to file the
damages, as a further result of his hospitalization, lost income of appropriate motion to dismiss. Hence, finding the pivotal
P25,000.00 or the nominal damages, and attorney’s fees. element of laches to be absent, the Sibonghanoy doctrine does
not control the present controversy. What happened in the
Sibonghanoy, the party invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only
after fifteen years and at a stage when the proceedings had (3) (Not really an issue raised by the respondent himself, but
already been elevated to the CA. Sibonghanoy is an exceptional was nonetheless discussed by the SC) On the issue whether
case because of the presence of laches. But in this case, there is a direct recourse by petition for certiorari to the SC from the
no laches. Thus, the general rule that the question of jurisdiction order of RTC: Generally a direct recourse to this Court is highly
of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings must improper, for it violates the established policy of strict
apply. Petitioners are not estopped from questioning the observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts. Although this
jurisdiction of the RTC. Court, the RTCs and the CA have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
(2) On the issue which of the amounts is determinative of corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the
jurisdiction: The well-entrenched principle is that the jurisdiction petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. This
of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the
of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of Constitution and immemorial tradition.
the claims or reliefs sought therein. In the present case, the
allegations in the complaint plainly show that private respondent Thus, this Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the
seeks to recover not only his medical expenses, lost income but redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and
also damages for physical suffering and mental anguish due to exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national
permanent facial deformity from injuries sustained in the interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the
vehicular accident. Viewed as an action for quasi-delict, the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its
present case falls squarely within the purview of Article 2219 (2), primary jurisdiction.
which provides for the payment of moral damages in cases of
quasi-delict causing physical injuries. Be that as it may, the judicial hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad
rule. It generally applies to cases involving warring factual
Private respondent’s claim for moral damages of P500,000.00 cannot be allegations. For this reason, litigants are required to repair to the trial
considered as merely incidental to or a consequence of the claim for courts at the first instance to determine the truth or falsity of these
actual damages. It is a separate and distinct cause of action or an contending allegations on the basis of the evidence of the
independent actionable tort. It springs from the right of a person to the parties. Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be
physical integrity of his or her body, and if that integrity is violated, brought immediately before appellate courts as they are not triers of
damages are due and assessable. Hence, the demand for moral facts. Therefore, a strict application of the rule of hierarchy of courts is
damages must be considered as a separate cause of action, not necessary when the cases brought before the appellate courts do
independent of the claim for actual damages and must be included in not involve factual but legal questions.
determining the jurisdictional amount.
In the present case, petitioners submit a pure question of law involving
If the rule were otherwise, i.e., the court’s jurisdiction in a case of quasi- the interpretation and application of paragraph 2 of Administrative
delict causing physical injuries would only be based on the claim for Circular No. 09-94. This legal question and in order to avoid further
actual damages and the complaint is filed in the MTC, it can only award delay are compelling enough reasons to allow petitioners’ invocation of
moral damages in an amount within its jurisdictional limitations, a this Court’s jurisdiction in the first instance.
situation not intended by the framers of the law.
(Maybe it is important to note that the petition for certiorari was filed from It is located at Robinson‘s Galleria, EDSA cor. Ortigas Avenue, QC.
the denial of the RTC of the petitioners’ motion to dismiss. There is no
final adjudication yet as to the complaint for damages.) Sometime in November 1999, Samson unlawfully distributed/sold Caterpillar
products(footwear, garments, clothing, bags, accessories) which are closely
13. Samson vs. Daway identical/colorable imitations of the authentic Caterpillar products and
G.R. No. 160054-55 | July 21, 2004 | Ynares-Santiago, J. likewise using trademarks, symbols and/or designs as would cause
confusion, mistake or deception on the part of the buying public to the
Petitioner: damage and prejudice of CATERPILLAR, INC., the prior adopter, user
Manolo P. Samson and owner of the following internationally: ―CATERPILLAR‖,
Respondents: ―CAT‖,―CATERPILLAR & DESIGN‖, ―CAT AND DESIGN‖, ―WALKING
Hon. Reynaldo Daway (RTC Quezon City), People of the Philippines, and MACHINES‖ and ―TRACK TYPE TRACTOR & DESIGN.‖
Caterpillar, Inc.
Summary: Samson filed a motion to suspend arraignment and other proceedings
Samson is the registered owner of ITTI Shoes. He was charged with a because of the existence of an alleged prejudicial question involved in
criminal complaint for unfair competition with the Quezon City RTC because another case (Civ Case No. Q-00-41446) involving unfair competition
he sells imitations of Caterpillar products, to the damage and prejudice of pending in the same RTC branch, as well as a petition for review with the
respondent Caterpillar Inc. He filed a motion to suspend arraignment Sec. of Justice assailing the Chief State Prosecutor‘s resolution.
because of the existence of an alleged prejudicial question involved in
another civil case. This was denied by the trial court. Next, he also filed a RTC denied this.
motion to quash information alleging that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
him. The Supreme Court ruled against him. In criminal/civil cases involving He then filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the trial
infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of court has no jurisdiction over the offense.
origin and false description or representation, is lodged with the RTC, as
provided under RA 166 or the Old Trademark Law. Note that at this time, He contended that since under Section 170 of the IPC, the penalty of
the IPC was already enacted. However, the IPC did not repeal the imprisonment forunfair competition does not exceed six years, the offense is
provisions involving jurisdiction, hence, RA 166 as regards jurisdiction is still cognizable by the Municipal Trial Courts and not by the Regional Trial Court,
good law. Further, there can be no prejudicial question involved in this case. per R.A. No. 7691.
It is important to note that under unfair competition,
fraud RTC also denied this.
is the common element. Also, an independent civil action may be filed
under Art. 33 of the Civil Code for fraud. Being an independent civil action, Hence, this petition.
there can be no prejudicial question.
Facts: Issues/Held:
Samson is the registered owner of ITTI Shoes. He was charged with two (IMPT) Which court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases for violation
informations for unfair competition under the Intellectual Property Code of intellectual property rights?
(IPC). The following are the pertinent portions of the informations:
RTC. Samson is wrong.
Samson is the owner of ITTI Shoes/Mano Shoes Manufacturing Was there a prejudicial question involved in this case as claimed by the
Corporation. accused?
–
NO. Judge correctly dismissed the motion to suspend arraignment. Had R.A. No. 8293 intended to vest jurisdiction over violations of intellectual
property rights with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, it would have expressly
Whether the pendency of the petition for review with the SOJ on the finding stated so under Section163 thereof.
of probable cause for unfair competition shall suspend the proceedings Moreover, the settled rule in statutory construction is that in case of conflict
– between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail.
NO. In this case, the IPC and RA 166 are special laws conferring jurisdiction
over violationsof intellectual property rights to the RTC.
Ratio It should prevail over RA No 7691 (as cited by Samson) which is a general
Jurisdiction Issue law.
Under Section 170 of the IPC, which took effect on January 1, 1998, the Hence, jurisdiction over the instant criminal case for unfair competition is
criminal penalty for infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, properlylodged with the Regional Trial Court even if the penalty therefor is
false designation of origin and false description or representation, is imprisonment of lessthan 6 years, or from 2 to 5 years and a fine ranging
imprisonment from 2 to 5 years and a fine ranging from Fifty Thousand from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00.
Pesos to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, In fact, to implement and ensure the speedy disposition of cases involving
violations of intellectual property rights under the IPC, the Court issued A.M.
Corollarily, Section 163 of the same Code states that actions (including No. 02-1-11-SC dated February 19, 2002designating certain Regional Trial
criminal and civil) under Sections 150, 155, 164, 166, 167, 168 and 169 Courts as Intellectual Property Courts.
shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction On June 17, 2003, the Court further issued a Resolution consolidating
under existing laws. jurisdiction to hearand decide Intellectual Property Code and Securities and
Exchange Commission cases inspecific Regional Trial Courts designated as
The existing law referred to here is Sec. 27 of RA 166 (The OLD Special Commercial Courts.
Trademark Law) Petitioner also cites the case of Mirpuri in arguing that RA 166 was already
It provides that jurisdiction over cases for infringement of registered marks, repealed totally by the IPC. However, such argument has no merit because
unfair competition, false designation of origin and false description or there is no categorical ruling that violation of IP rights is lodged with the
representation, is lodged with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial MTC. Also, the mere passing remark in that case was merely
Court) a backgrounderto the enactment of the IPC and cannot
Now, Samson is claiming that RA 166 is already repealed by the IPC. be construed as a pronouncement in cases for violation of intellectual
However, this is not so, because: property rights.
The repealing clause of the IPC reads that ―all acts and parts of Acts
inconsistent herewith, more particularly RA 166 (and goes on to cite other Prejudicial Question Issue
laws), are hereby repealed). Samson failed to substantiate his allegations of prejudicial question.
The use of the phrases ―parts of Acts‖ and ―inconsistent herewith‖ only In any case, there is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal
means that the repeal pertains only to provisions which are repugnant or not action can, according tolaw, proceed independently of each other.
susceptible of harmonization with the IPC.
Section 27 of R.A. No. 166, however, is consistent and in harmony with In the case at bar, the common element in the acts constituting unfair
Section 163 of R.A. No. 8293. competition under Section168 of the IPC is fraud
O
Pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, in cases of defamation,
fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and Thus respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus of the three sons in the
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Court of Appeals, alleging that petitioner‘s act of leaving the conjugal
dwelling and going to Albay and then to Laguna disrupted the education of
Hence, Civil Case No. Q-00-41446, which as admitted by private their children and deprived them of their mother‘s care. She prayed that
respondent also relate to unfair competition, is an independent civil action petitioner be ordered to appear and produce their sons before the court and
under Article 33 of the Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial to explain why they should not be returned to her custody.
question that will justify the suspension of the criminal cases at bar. On September 3, 2002, petitioner filed his memorandum alleging that
Petition for Review Issue respondent was unfit to take custody of their three sons because she was
habitually drunk, frequently went home late at night or in the wee hours of
According to the Rules, while the pendency of a petition for review is a the morning, spent much of her time at a beer house and neglected her
ground for suspension of the arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the duties as a mother. He claimed that, after their squabble on May 18, 2002,
deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60days reckoned from the filing it was respondent who left, taking their daughter with her. It was only then
of the petition with the reviewing office. that he went to Laguna where he worked as a tricycle driver. He also
questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under
Hence, after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to arraign Section 5(b) of RA 8369 (otherwise known as the ―Family Courts Act of
the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment. 1997‖) family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide
the petition for habeas corpus filed by respondent.
In this case, Samson failed to substantiate his allegations/failed to discharge For her part, respondent averred that she did not leave their home on May
the burden of proving that he was entitled to a suspension of his 18, 2002 but was driven out by petitioner. She alleged that it was petitioner
arraignment. who was an alcoholic, gambler and drug addict. Petitioner‘s alcoholism and
drug addiction impaired his mental faculties, causing him to commit acts of
His pleadings and annexes do not show the date of filing of the petition of violence against her and their children. The situation was aggravated by the
review with the SOJ. fact that their home was adjacent to that of her in-laws who frequently
meddled in their personal problems.
14. In the Matter of Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas On October 21, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision asserting its
Corpus authority to take cognizance of the petition and ruling that, under Article 213
of the Family Code, respondent was entitled to the custody of the two
15. MADRIÑAN vs. MADRIÑAN younger sons who were at that time aged six and four, respectively, subject
GR No. 159374 to the visitation rights of petitioner. With respect to eldest son who was then
July 12, 2007 eight years old, the court ruled that his custody should be determined by the
proper family court in a special proceeding on custody of minors under Rule
FACTS: 99 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court
Petitioner Felipe N. Madriñan and respondent Francisca R. Madriñan were of Appeals decision but it was denied. Hence, this recourse.
married on July 7, 1993.Their union was blessed with three sons and a
daughter. After a bitter quarrel on May 18, 2002, petitioner allegedly left their ISSUE: Whether or not the CA had jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas
conjugal abode and took their three sons with him to Albay and corpus as jurisdiction over the case is lodged in the Family Courts under
subsequently to Laguna. R.A. 8369.
Respondent sought the help of her parents and parents-in-law to patch HELD:
things up between her and petitioner but failed. She then brought the matter RA 8369 did not divest the CA and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction
to the Lupong Tagapamayapa in their Barangay, but this too proved futile. over habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors. The provisions of RA
8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the CA and the Court of Leyte, a separate civil complaint against the petitioners for
SC to issue said writ. Said law should be read in harmony with the damages arising from what they claimed to be their malicious prosecution.
provisions of RA 7092 (expanding the jurisdiction of the CA) and BP 129 The petitioners moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the ground that the
(the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — that family courts have trial court had no jurisdiction over the case because it involved employee-
concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and the SC in petitions for habeas corpus employer relations that were exclusively cognizable by the labor arbiter. The
where the custody of minors is at issue. This is in fact affirmed by motion was granted .On July 6, 1989, however, the respondent judge, acting
Administrative Circular 03-03-04-SC, dated April 22, 2004. on the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the complaint, saying it was
In this case, after petitioner moved out of their residence on May 18, 2002, ―distinct from the labor case for damages now pending before the labor
he twice transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial courts.‖ The petitioners then came to this Court for relief.
regions. By giving the family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas
corpus cases will result in an iniquitous situation leaving individuals like the Issue: Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the claim for damages
respondent without legal recourse in obtaining custody of her children. arising from the malicious prosecution of the petitioner company.
Individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for
would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose Held: It must be stressed that not every controversy involving workers and
writs are enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions. This lack their employers can be resolved only by the labor arbiters. This will be so
of recourse could not have been the intention of RA 8369. only if there is a ―reasonable causal connection‖ between the claim asserted
Moreover, under, RA 8369, the family courts are vested with original and employee-employer relations to put the case under the provisions of
exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases not in habeas corpus cases. Writs of Article 217. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the
habeas corpus which may be issued exclusively by the family courts under regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil and criminal jurisdiction.
said law pertain to the ancillary remedy that may be availed of in conjunction In Medina v. Castro-Bartolome, 3 two employees filed in the Court of First
with the petition for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. Instance of Rizal a civil complaint for damages against their employer for
slanderous remarks made against them by the company president. On the
16. TUCP vs. Coscolluela order dismissing the case because it came under the jurisdiction of the labor
17. Primero vs. IAC arbiters, Justice Vicente Abad Santos said for the Court:
It is obvious from the complaint that the plaintiffs have not alleged any unfair
18. PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTOR PHILS.vs. GALANG, September labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for damages for tortious acts
24,1991 allegedly committed by the defendants. Such being the case, the governing
statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code. It results that the orders
Facts: The private respondents were employees of the petitioner who were under review are based on a wrong premise.
suspected of complicity in the irregular disposition of empty Pepsi Cola The case now before the Court involves a complaint for damages for
bottles. On July 16, 1987, the petitioners filed a criminal complaint for theft malicious prosecution which was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Leyte
against them but this was later withdrawn and substituted with a criminal by the employees of the defendant company. It does not appear that there is
complaint for falsification of private documents. After a preliminary a ―reasonable causal connection‖ between the complaint and the relations of
investigation conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Leyte, the the parties as employer and employees. The complaint did not arise from
complaint was dismissed. such relations and in fact could have arisen independently of an
Allegedly after an administrative investigation, the private respondents were employment relationship between the parties. No such relationship or any
dismissed by the petitioner company on November 23, 1987. As a result, unfair labor practice is asserted. What the employees are alleging is that the
they lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration petitioners acted with bad faith when they filed the criminal complaint which
Branch of the NLRC in Tacloban City and decisions mandateed the Municipal Trial Court said was intended ―to harass the poor employees‖
reinstatement with damages. In addition, they instituted in the Regional Trial and the dismissal of which was affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor ―for
lack of evidence to establish even a slightest probability that all the thewrit of execution since it has the inherent power to controlits own
respondents processes in order to enforce its judgments andorders.True, an action
herein have committed the crime imputed against them.‖ This is a matter for damages lies within the jurisdiction of aregional trial court. However,
which the labor arbiter has no competence to resolve as the applicable law the RTC has no jurisdiction toissue a TRO in labor cases. The SC finds
is not the Labor Code but the Revised Penal Code. respondent Judgeguilty of gross ignorance of the law.
WHEREFORE, the order dated July 6, 1989, is AFFIRMED and the petition
DENIED, with costs against the petitioner. 22. Tolosa vs NLRC (2008)
On August 5, 2005, a little over seven (7) months after his election as Failing to obtain a reconsideration of the CA‘s decision, Locsin filed the
Chairman of the Board, the NCLPI Board held a special meeting at the present petition.
Manila Polo Club. One of the items of the agenda was the election of a new
set of officers. Unfortunately, Locsin was neither re-elected Chairman nor ISSUE: WON the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction?
reinstated to his previous position as EVP/Treasurer.
HELD: We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit.
Aggrieved, on June 19, 2007, Locsin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal The CA correctly ruled that no employer-employee relationship exists
with prayer for reinstatement, payment of backwages, damages and between Locsin and Nissan. Locsin was undeniably Chairman and
attorney‘s fees before the Labor Arbiter against NCLPI and Banson, who President, and was elected to these positions by the Nissan board pursuant
was then President of NCLPI. to its By-laws. As such, he was a corporate officer, not an employee. The
CA reached this conclusion by relying on the submitted facts and on
On July 11, 2007, instead of filing their position paper, NCLPI and Banson Presidential Decree 902-A, which defines corporate officers as ―those
filed a Motion to Dismiss, on the ground that the Labor Arbiter did not have officers of a corporation who are given that character either by the
jurisdiction over the case since the issue of Locsin‘s removal as Corporation Code or by the corporation‘s by-laws.‖ Likewise, Section 25 of
EVP/Treasurer involves an intra-corporate dispute. the Corporation Code provides that corporate officers are the president,
secretary, treasurer and such other officers as may be provided for in the
On August 16, 2007, Locsin submitted his opposition to the motion to by-laws. Even as Executive Vice-President/Treasurer, Locsin already acted
dismiss, maintaining his position that he is an employee of NCLPI. as a corporate officer because the position of Executive Vice-
President/Treasurer is provided for in Nissan‘s By-Laws. Article IV, Section
On March 10, 2008, Labor Arbiter Concepcion issued an Order denying the 4 of these By-Laws specifically provides for this position.
Motion to Dismiss, holding that her office acquired ―jurisdiction to arbitrate
and/or decide the instant complaint finding extant in the case an employer- An ―office‖ is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is
employee relationship.‖ elected by the directors or stockholders. On the other hand, an ―employee‖
usually occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of the
NCLPI, on June 3, 2008, elevated the case to the CA through a Petition for directors or stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. NCLPI raised the issue on also determines the compensation to be paid to such employee.
whether the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion by denying
the Motion to Dismiss and holding that her office had jurisdiction over the In this case, Locsin was elected by the NCLPI Board, in accordance with the
dispute. Amended By-Laws of the corporation. Locsin, therefore, at the time of his
severance from NCLPI, was the latter‘s corporate officer.
On August 28, 2008, the CA reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter‘s
Order denying the Motion to Dismiss and ruled that Locsin was a corporate Given Locsin‘s status as a corporate officer, the RTC, not the Labor Arbiter
officer. The CA concluded that Locsin does not have any recourse with the or the NLRC, has jurisdiction to hear the legality of the termination of his
Labor Arbiter or the NLRC since the removal of a corporate officer, whether relationship with Nissan. The RTC should exercise jurisdiction based on the
elected or appointed, is an intra-corporate controversy over which the NLRC following:
FACTS:
Prior to its amendment, Section 5(c) of PD 902-A provided that intra- Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses
corporate disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the SEC. However, after Sibonghanoy to recover from them a sum of P1, 908.00 with legal
RA8799 took effect, Subsection 5.2, Section 5 of the said law transferred interest. A writ of attachment was issued by the court against the
said jurisdiction to the RTC. defendants’ properties but the same was soon dissolved. After trial, the
court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and after the same had
Based on the above jurisdictional considerations, we would be forced to become final and executor, the court issued a writ of execution against
remand the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings if we were to the defendants. The writ being unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the
dismiss the petition outright due to the wrongful use of Rule 65. We cannot
issuance of the writ of execution against
close our eyes, however, to the factual and legal reality, established by
the Surety’s bond. Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on
evidence already on record, that Locsin is a corporate officer whose
the ground that the
termination of relationship is outside a labor arbiter‘s jurisdiction to rule
same was issued without summary hearing. This was denied by the
upon.
RTC. The Surety appealed in the CA, which was denied. This time, the
Under these circumstances, we have to give precedence to the merits of the surety just asked for an extension in order for them to file the motion for
case, and primacy to the element of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it
hear and rule on a case and is the threshold element that must exist before filed a motion to dismiss saying that by virtue of R.A. 296 which is the
any quasi-judicial officer can act. In the context of the present case, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of which placed
Labor Arbiter does not have jurisdiction over the termination dispute Locsin within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil
brought, and should not be allowed to continue to act on the case after the action where the value of the subject matter does not exceed P2,000.00.
absence of jurisdiction has become obvious, based on the records and the The Court of First Instance therefore has no jurisdiction over the case.
law. In more practical terms, a contrary ruling will only cause substantial The question of jurisdiction was filed by the Surety only 15 years from
delay and inconvenience as well as unnecessary expenses, to the point of the time the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance.
injustice, to the parties. This conclusion, of course, does not go into the
merits of termination of relationship and is without prejudice to the filing of ISSUE: WON THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED DUE TO THE
an intra-corporate dispute on this point before the appropriate RTC. LACK OF JURISDICTIONHELD:
No. After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse
The petition is dismissed and the CA decision is affirmed. decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the
jurisdiction or power of the court. The rule is that jurisdiction over the
26. Mangaliang vs. Catubig-Pastoral-SAME Pg. 8
subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusive by law as by law
and as the lack of it affect the very authority of the court to take
27. SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL.,
cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the
plaintiffs-appellees, vs. proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the
MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY alias GAVINO SIBONGHANOY and
present cases, a party may be barred by laches from involving this plea
LUCIABAGUIO,
for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done
defendants, in the case. A party cannot invoke a court’s jurisdiction and later on deny
MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC. (CEBU BRANCH)
it to escape a
bondingcompany and defendant-appellant.
penalty.
G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968
28. CALIMLIM vs HON. RAMIREZG.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 proceeding in which the prior judgment or order was rendered. If there is
lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit or of the parties, the
FACTS: judgment or order cannot operate as an adjudication of the controversy.
Independent Mercantile Corporation filed a petition in the respondent Court This essential element of the defense of bar by prior judgment or res
to compel Manuel Magali to surrender the owner's duplicate of TCT No. judicata does not exist in the case.
9138 in order that the same may be cancelled and a new one issued in the The petition filed by the petitioners in LRC Record No. 39492 was
name of the said corporation. Not being the registered owner and the title an apparent invocation of the authority of the respondent Court sitting as a
not being in his possession, Manuel Magali failed to comply with the order of land registration court. Reliance was apparently placed on Section 112 of
the Court directing him to surrender the said title. This prompted the Land Registration Act wherein it provides that a Court of First Instance,
Independent Mercantile Corporation to file an ex-parte petition to declare acting as a land registration court, is a court of limited and special
TCT No. 9138 as cancelled and to issue a new title in its name. The said jurisdiction. As such, its proceedings are not adequate for the litigation of
petition was granted by the respondent Court and the Register of Deeds of issues pertaining to an ordinary civil action, such as, questions involving
Pangasinan issued a new title in the name of the corporation, TCT No. ownership or title to real property.
68568. Petitioner, upon learning that her husband's title over the parcel of
land had been cancelled, filed a petition with the respondent Court, sitting as 29. SPS. RENE GONZAGA and LERIO GONZAGA
a cadastral court, praying for the cancellation of TCT No. 68568 but the vs.
court dismissed the petition. CA, HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, and LUCKY HOMES, INC.
Petitioner thereafter filed in the LRC Record No. 39492 for the cancellation
of TCT No. 68568 but the same was dismissed therein. Petitioners then G.R. No. 144025; December 27, 2002; CORONA, J.:
resorted to the filing of a complaint in for the cancellation of the
conveyances and sales that had been made with respect to the property, FACTS:
covered by TCT No. 9138, against Francisco Ramos who claimed to have Sometime in 1970, Sps. Gonzaga purchased a parcel of land from private
bought the property from Independent Mercantile Corporation. Private respondent Lucky Homes, Inc., situated in Iloilo and containing an area of
respondent Francisco Ramos, however, failed to obtain a title over the 240 square meters. Said lot was specifically denominated as Lot No. 19
property in his name in view of the existence of an adverse claim annotated under a TCT and was mortgaged to the Social Security System (SSS) as
on the title thereof at the instance of the herein petitioners. Francisco security for their housing loan.
Ramos filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the same is barred by
prior judgement or by statute of limitations. Resolving the said Motion, the
respondent Court dismissed the case on the ground of estoppel by prior Petitioners then started the construction of their house, not on Lot No. 19
judgment. but on Lot No. 18, as Lucky Homes Inc mistakenly identified Lot No. 18 as
Lot No. 19. Upon realizing its error, private respondent informed petitioners
Issue: W/N dismissal of the case is proper on the ground of estoppel by of such mistake but the latter offered to buy Lot No. 18 in order to widen
prior judgment their premises. Thus, petitioners continued with the construction of their
house.
HELD: No. It is error to consider the dismissal of the petition filed by the
herein petitioner in LRC Record No. 39492 for the cancellation of TCT No.
68568 as a bar by prior judgment against the filing of the subsequent civil However, petitioners defaulted in the payment of their housing loan from
case. In order to avail of the defense of res judicata, it must be shown, SSS. Consequently, Lot No. 19 was foreclosed by SSS and petitioners‘
among others, that the judgment in the prior action must have been certificate of title was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of
rendered by a court with the proper jurisdiction to take cognizance of the SSS.
HELD:
Yes. The SC held that the doctrine in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, as reiterated in
Sps. Gonzaga then offered to swap Lot Nos. 18 and 19 and demanded from numerous cases, is still controlling. In explaining the concept of jurisdiction
Lucky Homes that their contract of sale be reformed and another deed of by estoppel, the Court quoted its decision in said case, to wit:
sale be executed with respect to Lot No. 18, considering that their house "It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to
was built therein. However, private respondent refused. This prompted secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing
petitioners to file, on June 13, 1996, an action for reformation of contract to obtain such relief, repudiate, or question that same jurisdiction x x x x
and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36. [T]he question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter
of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the
party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the
The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It held that when Lot No. court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such
19 was foreclosed and sold at public auction, the reformation, or the a practice can not be tolerated–– obviously for reasons of public policy."
swapping of Lot 18 and Lot 19, was no longer feasible considering that Sps. Furthermore, the Court said that it was petitioners themselves who invoked
Gonzaga were no longer the owners of Lot 19. Thus, Lucky Homes would the jurisdiction of the court a quo by instituting an action for reformation of
be losing Lot 18 without any substitute therefore. Furthermore, the RTC contract against private respondents. It must be noted that in the
ruled: proceedings before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted their
"The logic and common sense of the situation lean heavily in favor of the cause from start to finish. Not even once did petitioners ever raise the issue
defendant. It is evident that what plaintiff had bought from the defendant is of the court‘s jurisdiction during the entire proceedings which lasted for two
Lot 19 covered by TCT No. 28254 which parcel of land has been properly years. It was only after the trial court rendered its decision and issued a writ
indicated in the instruments and not Lot 18 as claimed by the plaintiff. The of execution against them in 1998 did petitioners first raise the issue of
contracts being clear and unmistakable, they reflect the true intention of the jurisdiction ─ and it was only because said decision was unfavorable to
parties, besides the plaintiff failed to assail the contracts on mutual mistake, them. Petitioners thus effectively waived their right to question the court‘s
hence the same need no longer be reformed.‖ jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed.
A writ of execution was issued. The petitioners filed a motion to recall said
writ on the ground that the RTC lack jurisdiction as pursuant to PD 957 (The DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), it was vested in
theHousing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Consequently, Sps. Gonzaga Petition for review is denied.
filed a new complaint with the HLURB, and also a petition for annulment of
judgment with the CA, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 30. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. V. Eddy Ng Kok Wei
G.R. No. 139791, 12 December 2003, Third Division, (Sandoval-
Gutierrez, J.)
The CA dismissed the petition, relying on the doctrine of estoppel laid down Yet while it may be true that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear
in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. the case, the petitioner company’s active participation in the proceedings
estopped it from assailing such lack of it. The Court has held that it is an
undesirable practice for a party participating in proceedings and submitting
ISSUE: its case for decision and then accepting judgment if acceptable, only to
WON the Sps Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the attacking it later for lack of jurisdiction if adverse.
jurisdiction of the RTC to try the case
FACTS: Eddy Kok Wei purchased from Manila Bankers Life Insurance Co.
a condominium unit at Valle Verde Terraces. Kok Wei and Manila Bankers
Life president Antonio Puyat executed a contract to sell where it was c. For determining whether there is a perfected sale of contract.
1
stipulated that the condo unit shall be substantially completed and Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
delivered to Kok Wei within 15 months from February 8, 1989 or May 8, seeking to set aside the decision of the CA.
1990. The turnover date was moved to May 31, 1990 due to uncontrollable
forces (typhoons, coup d‘etat attempts, steel and cement shortage). Facts:
The trial court found Manila Bankers Life liable for damages due to delay in 1. "On July 29, 1985, [petitioner] BPI Investment Corporation filed a
the performance of its obligation. On appeal, the CA affirmed the award of complaint for a Sum of Money against ALS Management and
damages, prompting Manila Bankers Life to elevate the case to the SC. Development Corporation, alleging inter alia that on July 22, 1983,
Petitioner company argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the [petitioner] and [respondent] executed at Makati, Metro Manila a
case as it is properly cognizable by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Deed of Sale for one (1) unfurnished condominium unit of the Twin
Board (HLURB). Towers Condominium located at Ayala Avenue, corner Apartment
Ridge Street, Makati, Metro Manila designated as Unit E-4A
ISSUE: comprising of 271 squares [sic] meters more or less, together with
Whether or not the trial court have jurisdiction to decide Kok Wei‘s parking stalls identified as G022 and G-63.
complaint? 2. The Condominium Certificate of Title No. 4800 of the Registry of
Deeds for Makati, Metro Manila was issued after the execution of
HELD: the said Deed of Sale.
Complaints for specific performance with damages by a lot or condominium 3. [Petitioner] advanced the amount of P26,300.45 for the expenses in
unit buyer against the owner or developer fall under the exclusive causing the issuance and registration of the Condominium
jurisdiction of the HLURB. Certificate of Title.
Yet while it may be true that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear 4. Under the penultimate paragraph of the Deed of Sale, it is stipulated
the case, the petitioner company‘s active participation in the proceedings that the VENDEE [respondent] shall pay all the expenses for the
estopped it from assailing such lack of it. The Court has held that it is an preparation and registration of this Deed of Sale and such other
undesirable practice for a party participating in proceedings and submitting documents as may be necessary for the issuance of the
its case for decision and then accepting judgment if acceptable, only to corresponding Condominium Certificate of Title.
attacking it later for lack of jurisdiction if adverse. 5. After the [petitioner] complied with its obligations under the said
Deed of Sale, [respondent], notwithstanding demands made by
31. G.R. No. 151821 April 14, 2004 [petitioner], failed and refused to pay [petitioner] its legitimate
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, as Successor-in-Interest of BPI advances for the expenses mentioned above without any valid,
Investment Corporation, petitioner, legal or justifiable reason.
vs. 6. [Respondent] averred among others that it has just and valid
ALS MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondent. reasons for refusing to pay [petitioner‘s] legal claims.
PANGANIBAN, J. a. In clear and direct contravention of Section 25 of
DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Regulatory Presidential Decree No. 957 which provides that ‗No fee
Board (HLURB) over cases enumerated in Section 1 of PD 1344 is except those required for the registration of the deed of sale
exclusive. It has sole jurisdiction in: in the Registry of Deeds shall be collected for the issuance
a. A complaint of specific performance for the delivery of a certificate of such title‘, the [petitioner] has jacked-up or increased the
of title to a buyer of a subdivision lot; amount of its alleged advances for the issuance and
b. For claims of refund regardless of whether the sale is perfected or registration of the Condominium Certificate of Title in the
not; and name of the [respondent], by including therein charges
which should not be collected from buyers of condominium succeeded in establishing an even bigger claim under its
11
units. counterclaim."
12
b. "[Respondent] further averred that [petitioner] represented 9. Hence, this Petition.
to the [respondent] that the condominium unit will be
delivered completed and ready for occupancy not later than Issues:
December 31, 1981. [Respondent] relied solely upon the Whether or not the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and
descriptions and warranties contained in the not the RTC had jurisdiction over the respondent‘s counterclaim--being one
aforementioned brochures and other sales propaganda for specific performance (correction of defects/deficiencies in the
materials when [respondent] agreed to buy Unit E-4A of the condominium unit) and damages? YES!
Twin Tower(s) for the hefty sum of P2,048,900.00 And, whether or not petitioner could still deny the trial court‘s jurisdiction
considering that the Twin Towers was then yet to be built. In after prceeding with the trial? NO!
contravention of [petitioner‘s] warranties and of good
engineering practices, the condominium unit purchased by The Petition is partly meritorious.
[respondent] suffered from the following defects and/or
deficiencies: Held:
7. Trial court ruled: Contending that it was the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
1. Ordering the [respondent] to pay [petitioner] the sum of (HLURB) -- not the RTC -- that had jurisdiction over respondent‘s
P26,300.45, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint up counterclaim, petitioner seeks to nullify the award of the trial court.
to full payment thereof, representing the amount spent for the As mandated by PD No. 957, the jurisdiction of the HLURB is
registration of the title to the condominium unit in [respondent‘s] encompassing. Hence, we said in Estate Developers and Investors
15
name; Corporation v. Sarte:
2. Ordering [petitioner] to deliver, replace or correct at "x x x. While PD 957 was designed to meet the need basically to protect lot
[petitioner‘s] exclusive expense/cost or appoint a licensed buyers from the fraudulent manipulations of unscrupulous subdivision
qualified contractor to do the same on its behalf, the following owners, sellers and operators, the ‗exclusive jurisdiction‘ vested in the NHA
defects/deficiencies in the condominium unit owned by the is broad and general -‗to regulate the real estate trade and business‘ in
[respondent. accordance with the provisions of said law."
3. Ordering [petitioner] to pay [respondent] the following: Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the HLURB over cases enumerated in
a. The sum of P40,000.00 representing reimbursement for Section 1 of PD No. 1344 is exclusive. Thus, we have ruled that the board
expenses incurred for the materials/labor in installing has sole jurisdiction in a complaint of specific performance for the delivery of
16
walls/floor titles in 2 bathrooms and bar counter cabinet. a certificate of title to a buyer of a subdivision lot; for claims of refund
17
b. The sum of P136,608.75, representing unearned regardless of whether the sale is perfected or not; and for determining
18
income whether there is a perfected contract of sale.
c. The sum of P27,321.75 per month for a period of Clearly then, respondent‘s counterclaim -- being one for specific
twenty-one (21) months (from May 1985 to January performance (correction of defects/deficiencies in the condominium unit)
1987), representing unearned income and damages -- falls under the jurisdiction of the HLURB as provided by
8. Court of Appeals sustained the trial court‘s finding that "while Section 1 of PD No. 1344.
[petitioner] succeeded in proving its claim against the [respondent] In the present case, petitioner proceeded with the trial, and only after a
for expenses incurred in the registration of [the latter‘s] title to the judgment unfavorable to it did it raise the issue of jurisdiction. Thus, it may
condominium unit purchased, x x x for its part [respondent] in turn no longer deny the trial court‘s jurisdiction, for estoppel bars it from doing so.
This Court cannot countenance the inconsistent postures petitioner has
adopted by attacking the jurisdiction of the regular court to which it has However, he incurred another infraction when he obtained a loan from a
24
voluntarily submitted. magazine dealer and when he was not able to pay the loan, he stopped
The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one‘s case for collecting the outstanding dues of the dealer/creditor. After requiring him
decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking it to explain, respondent admitted his failure to pay the loan but gave no
25
for lack of jurisdiction if it is not. definitive explanation for the same.
We also find petitioner guilty of estoppel by laches for failing to raise the Thereafter, he was penalized with suspension. He was also not allowed to
question of jurisdiction earlier. From the time that respondent filed its do field work, and was transferred to a new position. Despite the completion
counterclaim on November 8, 1985, the former could have raised such of his suspension, respondent stopped reporting for work and sent a letter
issue, but failed or neglected to do so. It was only upon filing its appellant‘s communicating his refusal to accept the transfer. He then filed a complaint
26
brief with the CA on May 27, 1991, that petitioner raised the issue of for constructive dismissal, non-payment of backwages and other money
jurisdiction for claims with the labor arbiter.
Thus, we struck down the defense of lack of jurisdiction, since the appellant
therein failed to raise the question at an earlier stage. It did so only after an
adverse decision had been rendered. The complaint was resolved in favor of respondent. Petitioner lodged an
appeal with the NLRC, raising as a ground the lack of jurisdiction of the
WHEREFORE, this Petition is PARTLY GRANTED, and the assailed labor arbiter over respondent‘s complaint. Significally, this issue was not
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals MODIFIED, as follows: raised by petitioner in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
Hereby DELETED is the requirement on the part of petitioner to (1) deliver
storage facilities on the ground floor; (2) pay P136,608.75 for unearned The NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and ruled that the LA has no
income for the five-month period that the lease contract was allegedly jurisdiction over the case, it being a grievance issue properly cognizable by
suspended; (3) correct the alleged passageway in the balcony; (4) pay the voluntary arbitrator. However, the CA reinstated the ruling of the CA.
P40,000.00 as reimbursement for completion work done by respondent; (5) The CA held that the active participation of the party against whom the
pay P27,321.75 per month for a period of twenty-one months for the alleged action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the
unearned income during the period when the condominium unit remained court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an
vacant. Petitioner, however, is ORDERED to pay P51,000 as temperate invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of
damages for the termination of the lease contract because of the defects in the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body‘s
the condominium unit. All other awards are AFFIRMED. jurisdiction.