of the pendency of G.R. No.

144694 which
In the Matter to Declare in is a contumacious conduct tending, directly
Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon or indirectly,to impede, obstruct or degrade
Datumanong the administration of justice
G.R. No. 150274
August 4, 2006 Issue: Whether there can be a Retroactive
Application of Rules of Court.

Ruling: YES, As a general rule, the

Doctrine: As a general rule, the retroactive retroactive application of procedural laws
application of procedural laws cannot be cannot be considered violative of any
considered violative of any personal rights personal rights because no vested right may
because no vested right may attach to nor attach to nor arise therefrom.—Well-settled
arise therefrom. is the rule that procedural laws are construed
to be applicable to actions pending and
Facts: Petitioner Jimmie F. Tel-Equen, undetermined at the time of their passage,
District Engineer of Mountain Province, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and
DPWH Cordillera Administrative Region, to that extent. As a general rule, the
with several others, was found by the retroactive application of procedural laws
Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the cannot be considered violative of any
Office of the Ombudsman guilty of personal rights because no vested right may
dishonesty, falsification of public attach to nor arise therefrom.
documents, misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service In the case at bar, the Rules of Procedure of
and ordered their dismissal from the service the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly
with accessory penalties. Their MR was procedural and no vested right of the
denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed with petitioner is violated as he is considered
modification the decision finding petitioner preventively suspended while his case is on
and two co-accused guilty as charged and appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on
dismissed them from the service while the appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such
other two respondents were exonerated from other emoluments that he did not receive by
administrative liability for lack of evidence. reason of the suspension or removal.
Petitioner, together with his two co-accused, Besides, there is no such thing as a vested
appealed from the decision of the Court of interest in an office, or even an absolute
Appeals which was docketed as G.R. No. right to hold office. Excepting constitutional
144694. Meanwhile, while appeal was still offices which provide for special immunity
pending, Secretary Datumanong issued the as regards salary and tenure, no one can be
assailed Memorandum Order dismissing him said to have any vested right in an office.
from the service. Hence, the instant petition
to cite Secretary Datumanong in contempt of
court for issuing the MO despite knowledge
 Ruling: YES, The trial court gravely erred
Colmenar v. Colmenar
when it applied the 2019 Amendments to
G.R. No. 252467
resolve the affirmative defenses pleaded by
June 21 2021
respondent companies. The 2019
Amendments shall govern all cases filed
Doctrine: The application of the 2019 after their effectivity on May I, 2020 as well
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil as all pending cases commenced, except to
Procedure must be done with utmost caution the extent that in the opinion of the court,
and strict caution and strict adherence to its their application would not be feasible or
provisions. Thus cautioned the Supreme would work injustice, In which case, the
Court as it reversed and set aside an Order procedure under which the cases were filed
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which shall govern. Here, the case commenced
misapplied and used the said 2019 with the filing of the complaint in
Amendments in dismissing a complaint for September 2018 and remained pending
declaration of nullity of deed of extrajudicial when the 2019 Amendments took effect.
settlements (EJS) of estate, deeds of The records though readily show that when
sale,cancellation of titles, and damages Judge Gill motu proprio resolved the
affirmative defenses on May 22, 2020, the
Facts: Frank Colmenar's father passed prescribed thirty (30)-day period for
away, and the respondents executed resolving affirmative defenses had long
extrajudicial settlement documents, falsely expired. ProFriends filed its answer with
claiming to be the surviving heirs and affirmative defense in December 2018; PEC
allocating the properties to themselves. They and Crisanta Realty on January 3, 2019; and
then sold the properties to various buyers. Amaia on February 27, 2020. Judge Gill
Frank, asserting his successional rights, sent should have, therefore, desisted from
demand letters but faced defenses from the applying the 2019 Amendments to the case
buyers, including lack of cause of action, below, specifically Section 12, Rule 8
being innocent purchasers for value, and the thereof, because when she did, the same was
claim being barred by laches or prescription. no longer feasible.
The 2019 amendment to the Rules of Court
took effect, and Judge Gill dismissed the Judge Gill ignored the injustice caused by
complaint against the buyers, applying the the application of the 2019 Amendments to
new rules. Frank seeks relief, arguing that the case. For as a consequence, petitioner
Judge Gill should not have applied the 2019 lost his substantial right to be heard on the
rules and should not have dismissed his common affirmative defense of PEC,
claims against the buyers. Crisanta Realty, and Amaia, and his right to
seek a reconsideration of the order of
Issue: Whether the trial court committed dismissal which were both granted him
reversible error when it applied the 2019 under the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil
Rules of Procedure to resolve the affirmative Procedure.
defenses pleaded by respondent companies?
 Thus, there should be an effort on the part of
the party invoking liberality to advance a
Labao v. Flores
reasonable or meritorious explanation for
G.R. No. 187984
his/her failure to comply with the rules.
November 15 2010

Facts: The petitioner, who owns and

Doctrine: Procedural rules are not to be manages the San Miguel Protective Security
belittled or dismissed simply because their Agency (SMSA), had security guards
non-observance may have prejudiced a assigned to the National Power Corporation,
party’s substantive rights; like all rules, they Mindanao Regional Center (NPC-MRC) in
are required to be followed. However, there Iligan City. The petitioner issued a
are recognized exceptions to their strict memorandum asking the guards to submit
observance, such as: updated personal data and documents for
(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; reevaluation due to a new service contract
(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not with NPC-MRC. When the guards didn't
commensurate with his failure to comply comply, they were relieved from NPC-MRC
with the prescribed procedure; duty and asked to report for new
(3) good faith of the defaulting party by assignments.
immediately paying within a reasonable
time from the time of the default; In response, the guards filed complaints for
(4) the existence of special or compelling illegal dismissal and money claims, stating
circumstances; that they were constructively dismissed as
(5) the merits of the case; they were not given new assignments for
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the over six months despite requesting
fault or negligence of the party favored by redeployment. The Labor Arbiter and the
the suspension of the rules; National Labor Relations Commission
(7) a lack of any showing that the review (NLRC) dismissed the complaints, ruling
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; that the petitioner's actions were within their
(8) the other party will not be unjustly management prerogative and were in the
prejudiced thereby; best interest of the business.
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence without appellant’s fault; Issue: Whether the CA erred in acting on
10) peculiar legal and equitable the respondents' petition despite its late
circumstances attendant to each case; filing, and in reversing the LA and NRC
(11) in the name of substantial justice and decisions.
fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and Ruling: The Court has found the petitioner's
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the appeal to be valid. According to Rule 65 of
judge guided by all the attendant the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a
circumstances. certiorari petition should be filed within 60
days from the date of notice of the
judgment, order, or resolution being March 12, 2019
challenged. This 60-day period is non-
extendible to ensure a prompt resolution of
cases. Doctrine: Supreme Court shall not review
evidence taken, nor retry the questions of
In this case, the respondents' certiorari fact. Courts decide on questions of law, not
petition was filed 28 days after Atty. Plando a trier of facts. Doctrine of Hierarchy of
received the September 29, 2006 resolution. courts is to prevent inordinate demands
The respondents argue that they should not upon the court, prevent overcrowding, and
be held responsible for their attorney's prevent delay.
negligence in failing to inform them of the
resolution, and they claim that the 60-day Facts: Gios-Samar Inc. (GS) files a case
period should start from their December 6, against the DOTC. The DOTC created a bid
2006 notice. for the creation of airports and bundled the
projects together. GS complained about this
However, the Court disagrees with the since it would violate the constitution due to
respondents' argument, stating that accepting dummy issues. DOTC counters that the
it would create a dangerous precedent. constitution does not prevent Bundling of
Allowing parties to avoid compliance with projects. The Supreme Court found that the
orders or decisions by blaming their petition relies on a question of Fact and not
counsel's negligence would undermine the a question of law.
integrity of the judicial process.
Issue: WON the Supreme Court can take the
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals case?
(CA) made a mistake in considering the late-
filed petition. The resolution from the Ruling: This Court's original jurisdiction to
National Labor Relations Commission issue writs of certiorari (as well as
(NLRC) had already become final and prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
executory, and the CA did not have the habeas corpus and injunction) is not
authority to entertain the petition; its only exclusive. It is shared by this Court with
option was to order its dismissal. Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of
First Instance), which may issue the writ,
enforceable in any part of their respective
regions. It is also shared by this Court, and
by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court
of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate
Appellate Court), although prior to the
effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on
August 14, 1981, the latter's competence to
GIOS-SAMAR INC. v. DOTC issue the extraordinary writs was restricted
G.R. No. 217158 to those "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction."
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, of Camarines Sur approved numerous
however, to be taken as according to parties disbursements from 2006-2010 for various
seeking any of the writs an absolute, activities. Upon audit, the COA found
unrestrained freedom of choice of the court deficiencies, non-compliance with RA 9184,
to which application therefor will be and unnecessary expenditures. With that,
directed. There is after all a hierarchy of they issued 10 notices of disallowance,
courts. That hierarchy is determinative of which the private respondent did not
the venue of appeals, and should also serve question.
as a general determinant of the appropriate
forum for petitions for the extraordinary Private respondent filed 2 petitions for
writs. A becoming regard for that judicial certiorari and prohibition against the COA’s
hierarchy most certainly indicates that orders. Additionally, they sought inunctive
petitions for the issuance of extraordinary relief against COA. The RTC issued a TRO
writs against first level ("inferior") courts and extended the same numerous times. The
should be filed with the Regional Trial petitioners now opposed the writ of
Court, and those against the latter, with the injunction on the ground that the RTC has
Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to petitions
issue these writs should be allowed only
when there are special and important reasons Petitioner’s argument
therefor, clearly and specifically set out in They assail that the RTC had no jurisdiction
the petition. This is established policy. over private respondent’s petitions for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Commission on Audit v. Ferrer
Respondent’s argument
G.R. No. 218870
Private respondent argues that the judicial
November 15 2010
recourse to the RTC was proper because he
Doctrine is not assailing the ruling of the COA
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds Commission Proper, but merely the ruling of
that if a case is such that its determination its provincial auditors.
requires the expertise, specialized
training, and knowledge of an Issue
administrative body, relief must first be WON the RTC had jurisdiction over the
obtained in an administrative proceeding matter.
before resorting to the courts is had even
if the matter may well be within their proper Ruling
jurisdiction. NO. The Supreme Court granted the
petition. COA has primary jurisdiction
Facts over issues involving disallowances
Private respondent Luis Raymund Article IX of the Constitution provides that
Villafuerte, during his term as the Governor the COA shall have the power, authority,
and duty to examine, audit, and settle all Still aggrieved, Marcoses appealed but the
accounts pertaining to the revenue and CA denied the same, which became final
receipts of, and expenditures or uses of and executory
funds and property, owned or held in trust
by, or pertaining to the government… The Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicators (PARAD) also denied the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos vs. Marcoses’ motion for reconsideration and
Heirs of Mariano Marcos granted a writ of execution to the RCMBI.
G.R. No 225971 They then filed a motion to quash the writ
June 17, 2020 arguing that the 5 year period from the date
of promulgation of the 1982 MAR order had
Doctrine already lapsed. PARAD now ruled in favor
The doctrine of Exhaustion of of the Marcoses
Administrative Remedies is a cornerstone of
our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is Petitioner’s Argument
that courts must allow administrative RCBMI contends that the petition was no
agencies to carry out their functions and longer about the merits of the agrarian
discharge their responsibilities within the dispute, which had long been decided, but
specialized areas of their respective more so about jurisdiction, and that the Writ
competence. of Execution on the final and executory
1982 MAR’s order was but ministerial in
Facts nature.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos
(RCBMI) was the owner of a parcel of land, Issue
where portions of the same was awarded to WON PARAD acted in excess of its
Mariano Marcos, now represented by his jurisdiction when it granted the heirs off
heirs. Marcos’ Motion to Quash the writ of
RCBMI sought the cancellation of the award execution and denied RCBMI’s motion for
of the above portions to Marcos, mainly reconsideration
alleging that those lots were not devoted to
rice production but to social and Ruling
humanitarian programs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
RCBMI. The CA, in dismissing RCBMI's
The ministry of agrarian reform (MAR) petition, harked back to Section 5, Rule II of
agreed to cancel the ownership of the the 1989 DARAB Rules and concluded that
Marcoses pursuant to PD 27. Marcos filed as provided therein, RCBMI should have
for a reconsideration of the same three years first appealed the PARAD's quashal of the
after, but the same was denied. writ of execution before the DARAB, for the
Subsequently, Marcoses were asked to exhaustion of the administrative remedies
vacate from the property available to it.The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, in and of itself, is
grounded on practical reasons, including co-equal body but to a higher court with
allowing the administrative agencies authority to nullify the action of the issuing
concerned to take every opportunity to court through a petition for certiorari.
correct its own errors, as well as affording
the litigants the opportunity to avail of Facts:
speedy relief through the administrative
In 2001, respondents Simon Lori Holdings,
processes and sparing them of the laborious
Inc. (SLHI), Fortunato G. Pe, Raymundo G.
and costly resort to courts.
Pe, Jovencio F. Cinco, and Jose Revilla
Reyes, Jr. (individual lenders) extended a
RCBMI's resort to the DARAB to appeal the
loan to one Dante Tan (Dante) in the amount
PARAD's quashal would not only be time-
of P50,000,000.00. secured by Dante's
consuming but more so wasteful, as the
shares in Best World Resources Corporation
relief it prays for the DARAB is not clothed
(BWRC) and facilitated by PentaCapital
with the authority to grant.
Investment Corporation (PentaCapital).
PARAD, contrary to the immediacy of Dante failed to pay the loan upon maturity
execution as provided for in Sections 1, 2 and despite demands, he proposed to settle
and 3 of Rule XII of the 1989 DARAB the same by selling his shares in BWRC and
Rules, failed to immediately issue a writ of assigning the proceeds to SLHI, the
execution but instead ordered the Heirs of individual lenders, and PentaCapital
Marcos to file a comment or opposition, and (respondents).
thereby patently prolonged the life of this
litigation which should have already When he was due to execute the
terminated then. corresponding deeds of assignment, Dante
disappeared, leaving his obligations unpaid.
EGINA
TAN VS CINCO Respondents filed an action for sum of
GR NO 213054 money before the RTC. RTC ordered Dante
JUNE 15, 2016 to pay the sum of P100,100,000.00. A writ
was issued on the levied property registered
Doctrine: in Dante's name (subject property)

doctrine of judicial stability or non- Dante sought quashal of the writ stating the
interference – no court can interfere by conjugal nature of the subject property. The
injunction with the judgments or orders of Makati RTC denied ruling that he had
another court of concurrent jurisdiction contracted the obligation while engaged in
having the power to grant the relief sought his business; hence, it can be presumed that
by the injunction. the conjugal partnership was benefitted.

The issuing court may violate the, the Teresita - Dante's wife - filed before the
remedy, however, is not the resort to another Paranaque RTC a complaintcralawred
against respondents, respondent Sheriff court that acquires jurisdiction over the
Ignacio for the nullification of the auction case and renders judgment therein has
sale and the cancellation of the certificate of jurisdiction over its judgment, to the
sale issued in favor of respondents. exclusion of all other coordinate courts,
for its execution and over all its incidents,
RTC Paranaque initially dismissed but and to control, in furtherance of justice,
reversed its decision and nullified the the conduct of ministerial officers acting
auction sale, the certificate of sale, and the in connection with this judgment.
Final Deed of Sale in favor of respondents.
To be sure, the law and the rules are not
Issue: unaware that an issuing court may violate
the law in issuing a writ of execution and
WON the RTC Paranaque violated the
have recognized that there should be a
doctrine of judicial stability when it took
remedy against this violation. The remedy,
cognizance of the case.
however, is not the resort to another co-
Ruling: equal body but to a higher court with
authority to nullify the action of the issuing
YES. In this case, the Court finds that the court. This is precisely the judicial power
Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of that the 1987 Constitution, under Article
judicial stability when it took cognizance of VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2, speaks of and
Teresita's nullification case despite the fact which this Court has operationalized
that the collection case from which it through a petition for certiorari, under Rule
emanated falls within the jurisdiction of the 65 of the Rules of Court.
Makati RTC. Verily, the nullification case
ought to have been dismissed at the outset
for lack of jurisdiction, as the Paranaque Erice v. Sison
RTC is bereft of authority to nullify the levy A.M. No. RTJ-15-2407
and sale of the subject property that was November 22, 2017
legitimately ordered by the Makati RTC, a
coordinate and co-equal court.
Doctrine: Where decisions of certain
The doctrine of judicial stability or non- administrative bodies are appealable to the
interference in the regular orders or CA, these adjudicative bodies are co-equal
judgments of a co-equal court is an with the RTCs and their actions are logically
elementary principle in the administration of beyond the control of the RTC.
justice: no court can interfere by injunction
with the judgments or orders of another Facts: Edgar Erice, then Vice Mayor of
court of concurrent jurisdiction having the Caloocan City, filed a complaint against
power to grant the relief sought by the then Mayor Enrico Echiverri, City Treasurer
injunction. The rationale for the rule is Evelina Garma, Budget Officer Jesusa
founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a Garcia, and City Accountant Edna Centeno
(Echiverri, et. al.) before the Office of the In refuting the charges against him, Judge
Ombudsman for alleged violation of the Sison denied any allegations of the violation
Government Service Insurance System Act. of the right to due process of Erice and the
DILG in allowing the summary hearing to
Acting on the complaint, the Ombudsman proceed, and Echiverri, et. al. to present
issued an Order of Preventive Suspension evidence even though the OSG was not
against Echiverri, et al. The CA affirmed the informed of said hearing.
Order of Suspension of the Ombudsman and
lifted and set aside the TRO. A week later, The OCA recommended that Judge Sison be
Echiverri, et al. filed a Petition for found guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law,
Declaratory Relief with Prayer for TRO on the basis of, among others, Judge Sison’s
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with act of issuing a TRO and writ of preliminary
the RTC of Caloocan City. injunction against Erice and the DILG to
enjoin the latter from enforcing the
RTC Executive Judge Eleanor Kwong Ombudsman’s Order of Suspension which
issued a 72 hour ex-parte Order to enjoin the constitutes a violation of Section 14 of RA
DILG and Erice from implementing the No. 6770.
Order of Suspension. Subsequently, the case
was raffled and assigned to Judge Lorenza Issue: WON the writ of preliminary
Bordios. However, Judge Bordios inhibited injunction is valid. [NO]
herself from proceeding with the case and
was subsequently re-raffled to respondent Ruling: The subsequent declaration of the
Judge Dionisio Sison. policy in Section 14(1) of RA No. 6770 as
ineffective and of Section 14(2) as invalid
The OSG invoked its right to cross-examine does not serve to exonerate Judge Sison
the witnesses earlier presented by Echiverri, from administrative liability because he
et. al., but Judge Sison denied the same and failed to consider and act in accordance with
issued an Order extending the TRO to 20 the basic principle of judicial stability or
days, inclusive of the 72 hour TRO earlier non-interference. Pursuant to this principle,
granted by Judge Kwong. where decisions of certain administrative
bodies are appealable to the CA, these
On the day scheduled for the hearing on the adjudicative bodies are co-equal with the
Motion to Dismiss, Judge Sison stated that RTCs and their actions are logically beyond
he would hear evidence in support of the the control of the RTC.
application for a writ of preliminary
injunction. This compelled Erice to file an The Ombudsman’s decisions in disciplinary
Urgent Motion to Inhibit. Without ruling on cases are appealable to the CA under Rule
the Motion to Inhibit, Judge Sison issued the 43 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the
Order granting the writ of preliminary RTC had no jurisdiction to interfere with or
injunction. restrain the execution of the Ombudsman’s
decisions in disciplinary cases, more so,
because at the time Judge Sison issued the Without her knowledge and consent, her
TRO and proceeded with the writ of children executed a deed of extrajudicial
preliminary injunction against the partition and waiver of the estate of her
enforcement of the Ombudsman Order of husband wherein all the heirs, including
Suspension, the CA had already affirmed Lucia, agreed to allot the two parcels to Rico
that very same Order of Suspension. Ballesteros; that still, without her knowledge
and consent, Rico mortgaged Parcel B of the
Judge Sison should have, at the very least, estate in favor of RBCI which mortgage was
been aware that court orders or decisions being foreclosed for failure to settle the loan
cannot be the subject matter of a petition for secured by the lot; and that Lucia was
declaratory relief. They are not included occupying Parcel B and had no other place
within the purview of the words “other to live.
written instrument” in Rule 63 of the Rules
of Court governing petitions for declaratory While the case was pending in the RTC-
relief. The same principle applies to orders, Iriga, RBCI was closed and was placed
resolutions, or decisions of quasi-judicial under the receivership of Philippine Deposit
bodies, and this is anchored on the principle Insurance (PDI). Subsequently, PDI filed a
of res judicata. Consequently, a judgment motion to dismiss on the ground that the
rendered by a court or a quasi-judicial body RTC-Iriga has no jurisdiction over the
is conclusive on the parties, subject only to subject matter of the action since by virtue
appellate authority. The losing party cannot of RA No. 7653, jurisdiction is vested with
modify or escape the effects of judgment RTC-Makati, being the liquidation court
under the guise of an action for declaratory assisting PDI in the liquidation of RBCI.
relief. The RTC-Iriga granted the motion and
dismissed the case which was subsequently
affirmed by the CA.
Vda. de Ballesteros v. Rural Bank of
Lucia argues that the consolidation of the
Canaman
two cases is improper. Her case, which is for
G.R. No. 176260
annulment of deed of partition and waiver,
November 24, 2010
deed of mortgage and damages, cannot be
legally brought before the RTC-Makati with
Doctrine: The doctrine on the adherence of the liquidation case considering that her
jurisdiction is not absolute and has cause of action against RBCI is not a simple
exceptions, one of which is when the change claim arising out of a creditor-debtor
in jurisdiction is curative in character. relationship, but one which involves her
rights and interest over a certain property
Facts: Lucia alleged that her deceased irregularly acquired by RBCI. Neither is she
husband, Eugenio, left 2 parcels of land a creditor of the bank as only the creditors of
located in San Nicolas, Baao, Camarines the insolvent bank are allowed to file and
Sur, each with an area of 357 square meters. ventilate claims before the liquidator.
 September 25, 1998
PDIC, as liquidator of RBCI, counters that
the consolidation of Civil Case No. 3128
with the liquidation proceeding is proper. It Doctrine: Jurisdiction being a matter of
posits that the liquidation court of RBCI, substantive law, the established rule is that
having been established, shall have the statute in force at the time of the
exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against commencement of the action determines the
the said bank. jurisdiction of the court.

Issue: WON a liquidation court can take Facts: Upon learning of her husband
cognizance of a case wherein the main cause petitioner Herbert Cang’s alleged illicit
of action is not a simple money claim liaison, Anna Marie filed a petition for legal
against a bank under receivership. [YES] separation. Petitioner then left for the United
States where he sought a divorce from Anna
Ruling: The Court is not unmindful nor Marie before the Second Judicial District
unaware of the doctrine on the adherence of Court of the State of Nevada which also
jurisdiction. However, it is not absolute and granted sole custody of the three minor
has exceptions, one of which is when the children to Anna Marie, reserving “rights of
change in jurisdiction is curative in visitation at all reasonable times and places”
character. to petitioner. Thereafter, became a
naturalized American citizen.
Section 30 of RA No. 7653 is curative in
character when it declared that the Meanwhile, private respondents Ronald
liquidation court shall have jurisdiction in Clavano and Maria Clara Clavano,
the same proceedings to assist in the respectively the brother and sister-in-law of
adjudication of the disputed claims against Anna Marie, filed for the adoption of the
the bank. three minor Cang children before the RTC
of Cebu. Pending resolution of the petition
To allow Lucia’s case to proceed for adoption, petitioner moved to reacquire
independently of the liquidation case, a custody over his children.
possibility of favorable judgment and
execution thereof against the assets of RBCI Before the CA, petitioner contended that the
would not only prejudice the other creditors lower court erred in holding that it would be
and depositors, but would defeat the very in the best interest of the three children if
purpose for which a liquidation court was they were adopted by private respondents
constituted as well. Ronald and Maria Clara Clavano. He
asserted that the petition for adoption was
fatally defective and tailored to divest him
of parental authority because, among others,
Cang v. Court of Appeals he did not have a written consent to the
G.R. No. 105308
adoption; and he never abandoned his sufficient to warrant exemption from
children. compliance therewith.

Issue: WON minor children can be legally The allegations of abandonment in the
adopted without the written consent of the petition for adoption, even absent the written
natural parent on the ground that the latter consent of petitioner, sufficiently vested the
has abandoned them. [YES] lower court with jurisdiction since
abandonment of the child by his natural
Ruling: Jurisdiction being a matter of parents is one of the circumstances under
substantive law, the established rule is that which our statutes and jurisprudence
the statute in force at the time of the dispense with the requirement of written
commencement of the action determines the consent to the adoption of their minor
jurisdiction of the court. As such, when children.
private respondents filed the petition for
adoption on September 25, 1987, the However, in cases where the father opposes
applicable law was the Child and Youth the adoption primarily because his consent
Welfare Code, as amended by Executive thereto was not sought, the matter of
Order No. 91. whether he had abandoned his child
becomes a proper issue for determination.
During the pendency of the petition for
adoption or on August 3, 1988, the Family Physical estrangement alone, without
Code which amended the Child and Youth financial and moral desertion, is not
Welfare Code took effect. Article 256 of the tantamount to abandonment. While
Family Code provides for its retroactivity admittedly, petitioner was physically absent
“insofar as it does not prejudice or impair as he was then in the United States, he was
vested or acquired rights in accordance with not remiss in his natural and legal
the Civil Code or other laws.” obligations of love, care, and support for his
children.
As clearly inferred from the foregoing
provisions of law, the written consent of the There cannot be a valid decree of adoption
natural parent is indispensable for the in this case precisely because the finding of
validity of the decree of adoption. the courts below on the issue of petitioner’s
Nevertheless, the requirement of written abandonment of his family was based on a
consent can be dispensed with if the parent misappreciation that was tantamount to non-
has abandoned the child or that such parent appreciation of facts on record.
is “insane or hopelessly intemperate.” The
court may acquire jurisdiction over the case
even without the written consent of the HEIRS DOLLETON v. FIL-ESTATE
parents or one of the parents provided that G.R. No. 170750
the petition for adoption alleges facts April 9, 2009
 Additionally, if the name of the
Doctrine: Elementary test for failure to complainants are not included in the MTC,
state cause of action is whether the they are not bound by the decision of the
complaint alleges facts which if true would MTC.
justify the relief. To sustain a motion to
dismiss for lack of cause, the complaint EGINA
must show that the claim for relief does not THORNTON VS THORNTON
exist. GR NO 154598
AUGUST 16, 2004
Facts: Heirs Dolleton et al. (HD) filed a
case against Fil-Estate (FE). HD claims that Doctrine:
FE evicted them from their own land and
wanted to recover the land that they owned. The Family Court shall have concurrent
FE countered by saying that they are the jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and
rightful owners of the land and could evict the Supreme Court in petitions of habeas
HD. RTC dismissed the complaint of HD. corpus where the custody of the minors is at
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. issue as based on Section 20 on the Rule on
Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
Issue: WON the RTC erred in dismissing Corpus in relation to minors.
the case of HD?
Facts:

Ruling: YES, they erred. The Supreme Petitioner, an American, and respondent, a
Court states that there is a cause of action, Filipino, were married on August 28, 1998
“Cause of action as the act or omission by in the Catholic Evangelical Church at United
which a party violates the right of another. Nations Avenue, Manila. A year later,
Its essential elements are as follows: (1) a respondent gave birth to a baby girl whom
right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever they named Sequeira Jennifer Delle
means and under whatever law it arises or is Francisco Thornton.
created; (2) an obligation on the part of the
named defendant to respect or not to violate However, after three years, respondent grew
such right; and (3) an act or omission on the restless and bored as a plain housewife. She
part of such defendant in violation of the wanted to return to her old job as a "guest
right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach relations officer" in a nightclub.
of the obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff, for which the latter may maintain December 7, 2001, respondent left the
an action for recovery of damages or other family home with her daughter Sequiera
appropriate relief.”. In this case, HD claims without notifying her husband. She told the
that they are the owners via acquisitive servants that she was bringing Sequiera to
prescription but since FE evicted them from Purok Marikit, Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan
their own properties, it is a violation of Province.
rights. Therefore HD’s complaint is valid.
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus and BP 129 are absolutely incompatible
in the designated Family Court in Makati since RA 8369 does not prohibit the Court
City but this was dismissed, presumably of Appeals and the Supreme Court from
because of the allegation that the child was issuing writs of habeas corpus in cases
in Basilan. involving the custody of minors. Thus, the
provisions of RA 8369 must be read in
Petitioner went to Basilan and search, but harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 ― that
was unsuccessful. He again filed writ of family courts have concurrent jurisdiction
Habeas Corpus in the Court of Appeals but with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
was denied on the ground that it did not Court in petitions for habeas corpus where
have jurisdiction over the case. the custody of minors is at issue.

The petition was denied by the Court of The Court of Appeals should take
Appeals on the ground that it did not have cognizance of the case since there is nothing
jurisdiction over the case. It ruled that since in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to
RA 8369 (The Family Courts Act of 1997) issue writs of habeas corpus involving the
gave family courts exclusive original custody of minors.
jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus,
it impliedly repealed RA 7902 (An Act According to CA, Family Courts have
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of exclusive jurisdiction within such cases. SC
Appeals) and Batas Pambansa 129 (The disagree on that reasoning because
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) individuals who do not know the
whereabouts of minors they are looking for
Issue: would be helpless since they cannot seek
redress from family courts whose writs are
WON the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction
enforceable only in their respective
to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases
territorial jurisdictions.
involving custody of minors in the light of
the provision in RA 8369 giving family Thus, if a minor is being transferred from
courts exclusive original jurisdiction over one place to another, the petitioner in a
such petitions. habeas corpus will be left without legal
remedy.
Ruling:
The Family Court shall have concurrent
Yes.
jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and
The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no the Supreme Court in petitions of habeas
manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of corpus where the custody of the minors is at
the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to issue as based on Section 20 on the Rule on
issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
custody of minors. Further, it cannot be said Corpus in relation to minors.
that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092
The literal interpretation of the word allegations of damages in the amended
“exclusive” will result in grave injustice and complaint should be the basis of the
negate the policy to promote the right and computation of the filing fee.
welfare of the children. Thus the petition for
habeas corpus is granted. Serving officer In the present case, the allegations on the
shall search for the child all over the complaint is for an action for damages and
country. specific performance. The docket fee paid
upon filing of complaint in the amount only
MENDEZ of P410, although the total amount of
Manchester Development v Court of damages sought is not stated in the prayer of
Appeals (1987) the complaint yet it is spelled out in the
body of the complaint totalling in the
Doctrine: The rule is well-settled "that a
amount of P78,750,000.00 which should be
case is deemed filed only upon payment of
the basis of assessment of the filing fee.
the docket fee regardless of the actual date
Compared to the Magaspi case, no such
of filing in court."
honest difference of opinion was possible
as the allegations of the complaint, the
Facts: Petitioners in support of their
designation and the prayer show clearly that
contention that the filing fee must be
it is an action for damages and specific
assessed on the basis of the amended
performance. The docketing fee should be
complaint cite the case of Magaspi vs.
assessed by considering the amount of
Ramolete.
damages as alleged in the original
complaint.
The Magaspi case was an action for
recovery of ownership and possession while
After this Court issued an order ordering
the present case is an action for torts and
the re-assessment of the docket fee in the
damages and specific performance.
present case, the trial court directed
plaintiffs to rectify the amended complaint
In the Magaspi case, the complaint was
by stating the amounts which they are
considered as primarily an action for
asking for. It was only then that plaintiffs
recovery of ownership. Although the
specified the amount of damages in the
payment of the docketing fee of P60.00 was
body of the complaint in the reduced
found to be insufficient, nevertheless, it was
amount of P10,000,000.00. Still no amount
held that since the payment was the result of
of damages were specified in the prayer.
an "honest difference of opinion as to the
correct amount to be paid as docket fee" the
The Court of Appeals ruled in the present
court "had acquired jurisdiction over the
case that the basis of assessment of the
case and the proceedings thereafter had were
docket fee should be the amount of
proper and regular." Hence (in the Magaspi
damages sought in the original complaint
case), as the amended complaint
and not in the amended complaint.
superseded the original complaint, the
Issue: Whether the original complaint or the
amended complaint should be the basis of Doctrine: (1) It is not simply the filing of the
assessment of the docket fee; whether a complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading,
court acquires jurisdiction over a case when but the payment of the prescribed docket
the correct and proper docket fee has not fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction
been paid. over the subject- matter or nature of the
action.
Ruling: The original complaint. The ruling
in the Magaspi case is overturned and (2) The same rule applies to permissive
reversed. The court does not acquire counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
jurisdiction when the correct and proper pleadings, which shall not be considered
docket fee has not been paid. filed until and unless the filing fee
prescribed therefor is paid.
As reiterated in the Magaspi case the rule is
well-settled "that a case is deemed filed only (3) Where the trial court acquires
upon payment of the docket fee regardless jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
of the actual date of filing in court." Thus, in appropriate pleading and payment of the
the present case the trial court did not prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the
acquire jurisdiction over the case by the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
payment of only P410.00 as docket fee. pleading, or if specified the same has been
Neither can the amendment of the complaint left for determination by the court, the
thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court. For additional filing fee therefor shall constitute
all legal purposes there is no such original a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
complaint that was duly filed which could responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his
be amended. Consequently, the order duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien
admitting the amended complaint and all and assess and collect the additional fee.
subsequent proceedings and actions taken by
the trial court are null and void. Facts: On February 28, 1984, petitioner Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL for brevity)
In this case, since petitioners did not pay the filed a complaint for the consignation of a
correct and proper docket fee, which should premium Refund. On the other hand, private
have been based on the amount of P78.75 respondent filed a complaint for the refund
million, the court did not acquire jurisdiction of premiums. Although the prayer in the
from the time the case was filed. complaint did not quantify the amount of
damages sought said amount may be
Therefore, the court did not acquire inferred from the body of the complaint to
jurisdiction. be about Fifty Million Pesos
(P50,000,000.00). Only the amount of
P210.00 was paid by private respondent as
Sun Insurance Office Ltd v Asuncion
docket fee which prompted petitioners'
(1989)
counsel to raise his objection.
 In the present case, a more liberal
Eventually, the case was assigned to Judge interpretation of the rules is called for
Asuncion. Judge issued an order to the considering that, unlike Manchester, private
parties to comment since the pleadings filed respondent demonstrated his willingness
by private respondent did not indicate the to abide by the rules by paying the
exact amount sought to be recovered. additional docket fees as required.
Private respondent complied, paying the
docket fees based on the re-assessment. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
Petitioners argument: allege that while it payment of the prescribed docket fee, that
may be true that private respondent had vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
paid the amount of P182,824.90 as docket subject matter or nature of the action. Where
fee as herein-above related, and considering the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
that the total amount sought to be recovered accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
in the amended and supplemental complaint the court may allow payment of the fee
is P64,601,623.70 the docket fee that within a reasonable time but in no case
should be paid by private respondent is beyond the applicable prescriptive or
P257,810.49. In support of their theory, reglementary period.
petitioner cite the latest ruling of the Court
in Manchester Development Corporation vs. The same rule applies to permissive
CA. counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered
Private respondent’s argument/s: filed until and unless the filing fee
(1) the ruling in Manchester cannot prescribed therefor is paid. The court may
apply retroactively for at the time also allow payment of said fee within a
said civil case was filed in court reasonable time but also in no case beyond
there was no such Manchester ruling its applicable prescriptive or reglementary
as yet. period.
(2) what is applicable is the ruling of
this Court in Magaspi v. Ramolete, Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction
wherein this Court held that the trial over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
court acquired jurisdiction over the pleading and payment of the prescribed
case even if the docket fee paid was filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
insufficient. awards a claim not specified in the pleading,
or if specified the same has been left for
Issue: Whether the insufficiency in the determination by the court, the additional
payment of docket fee deprives the court of filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on
jurisdiction the judgment. It shall be the responsibility
of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized
Ruling: It depends on the case. deputy to enforce said lien and assess and
collect the additional fee.
 attachment, translated into unpaid docket
With regard to the retroactive application of fees amounting to P5,452,237.50; and, that
Manchester, it can apply retroactively. private respondent's suit should be dismissed
Statutes regulating the procedure of the for lack of jurisdiction or, at the very least,
courts will be construed as applicable to suspended until payment of the correct
actions pending and undetermined at the docket fees.
time of their passage.
Petitioners argument: Petitioner contends
that respondent failed to pay the correct
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp v
docket fees thus the trial court never
Alonzo Legasto (2006)
acquired the requisite jurisdiction over the
case; that granting the lower court never lost
Doctrine: its non-payment at the time of its jurisdiction notwithstanding the
filing does not automatically cause the deficiency assessment, it should have, in the
dismissal of the case, as long as the fees is interest of prudence and fair play, at least
paid within the applicable prescriptive or ordered the suspension of proceedings
reglementary period pending payment of the appropriate docket
fees.
Facts: For the purpose of putting an end to
the suit for a sum of money, petitioner and Issue: Whether the trial court was vested
respondent entered into a compromise jurisdiction despite insufficiency of filing
agreement. Petitioner commenced an action fees
to declare the aforesaid Compromise
Agreement null and void ab initio. Ruling: The trial court was vested
jurisdiction despite insufficiency of filing
Respondent filed a complaint for Specific fees.
Performance and Damages against
petitioner. Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed
docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement,
Petitioner filed a motion styled as one for even its non-payment at the time of filing
dismissal and/or suspension of all does not automatically cause the dismissal
proceedings in the aforesaid consolidated of the case, as long as the fees is paid within
cases. Calling public respondent's attention the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
to the fact that private respondent only paid period, more so when the party involved
P8,517.50 in docket fees, petitioner demonstrates a willingness to abide by the
maintained that, rather than for specific rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when
performance and damages as indicated in his insufficient filing fees were initially paid by
complaint, private respondent's cause of the plaintiffs and there was no intention to
action was actually one for a sum of money, defraud the government, the Manchester rule
the totality of the latter's claim, as disclosed does not apply.
in his motion for issuance of a writ of
In this case, the respondent relied on the b. The issuance of the free patent in
assessment made by the docket clerk which favor of petitioner’s father was due
turned out to be incorrect. The payment of to a gross error and no tax
the docket fees, as assessed, negates any declaration the petitioner’s father
imputation of bad faith or an intent to
defraud the government by the respondent. RTC dismissed it but reversed it in favor of
the respondent. CA affirmed.
Therefore, when insufficient filing fees were
initially paid by the respondent and there Issue: WON CA erred in not declaring the
was no intention to defraud the government, proceedings as well as the judgment of the
the Manchester rule does not apply. Hence, RTC void?
the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction
over the instant suit. Ruling:

The court said that for a court to decide on a

Foronda-Crystal v. Son
petition, it must first acquire jurisdiction
G.R. No. 221815
over the subject matter to hear it and
November 29, 2017
determine which class of action it belongs to

Doctrine: Usurpation of jurisdiction renders Without an allegation in the complaint of the

a court’s judgment null and void, and Rule assessed value, not the fair market value of
141 of Rules of Court re: docket and filing the property results in a dismissal since it
fees attribute in deciding which court has would be impossible to determine who has
jurisdiction over the matter jurisdiction over the matter. Since the
complaint failed to allege what is required, it
Facts: cannot determine whether RTC or MTC has
jurisdiction
Petitioner is the daughter of the the
registered owner of a parcel of land located Rule 141 of the Rules of Court concerns the
in Compostela, Province of Cebu. However, amount prescribed docket fees, and its latest
it was questioned by the respondent, iteration states that fees are determined by
alleging that the property is hers. (a) fair market value or zonal valuation by
BIR or stated value of property alleged by
Petitioner claimed should be dismissed for the claimant. This means that what the rule
lack of jurisdiction determines is the acquisition of jurisdiction
of courts thru payment of filing and docket
Respondent’s Argument fees which CA failed to consider since it
a. She had been religiously paying for relied only on the value of the property since
the real property tax evidenced by
the Tax Declaration The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
requires that the allegation of property’s
assessed value in the complaint., which the exceed the jurisdictional amount of
complaint did not have and would render it a P100,000.00 for RTCs. The trial court
violation of the law. However, the liberal denied the motion to dismiss, as well as
interpretation is that it can be found in annex petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
b (2.8k). RTC only has jurisdiction if Hence, RCPI went to the CA on a petition
property is more than 20k, or for civil for certiorari.
actions in Metro Manila, if property is more
than 50k Respondent’s argument/s: CA then
dismissed the petition.
MTC has clear jurisdiction, hence the
usurpation of jurisdiction renders the Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the
decision of the RTC null and void. complaint

Ruling:
Radio Communications of the YES, the court held that in determining
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals whether an action is one where the subject
G.R. No. 136109 matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
August 1, 2002 estimation, the nature of the principal action
or remedy sought must first be ascertained.
Doctrine: Where the basic issue is If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
something other than the right to recover a money, the claim is considered capable of
sum of money, where the money claim is pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the the action will depend on the amount of the
principal relief sought, the action is one claim. Clearly, the action for specific
where the subject of the litigation may not performance case, irrespective of the amount
be estimated in terms of money, which is of rentals and damages sought to be
cognizable exclusively by RTC. recovered, is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, hence cognizable exclusively by
Facts: the Regional Trial Court. The trial court,
Private respondent Dulawon filed with the therefore, did not err in denying petitioner’s
RTC a complaint for breach of contract of motion to dismiss.
lease with damages against petitioner Radio
Communications of the Philippines, Inc.
(RCPI).
Spouses Erorita vs. Spouses Dumlao
G.R. No. 195477
Petitioner’s argument/s: RCPI filed a
January 25, 2016
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction contending that it is the MTC
which has jurisdiction as the complaint is Doctrine: An action for unlawful detainer is
basically one for collection of unpaid rentals within the MTC’s exclusive jurisdiction
in the sum of P84,000.00, which does not regardless of the property’s assessed value.
 · In their joint answer, the
Facts: defendants prayed that the
Spouses Dumlao are the registered owners complaint be dismissed because
of the parcel of land where the San Mariano they cannot be forced to vacate
Academy structures are built. Spouses and to pay the rentals under their
Dumlao bought said property in an factual circumstances.
extrajudicial foreclosure sale because the · RTC had no jurisdiction because
former owners (Spouses Erorita) failed to the allegations in the complaint
redeem it. Spouses Dumlao agreed to allow show a case for unlawful detainer
the petitioners to continue to operate the
school on the property. RTC decided in the Spouses Dumlao’s
favor. It ordered the defendants (1) to
Respondent’s argument/s: immediately vacate the property and turn it
· The Spouses Dumlao alleged that over to the Spouses Dumlao, and (2) to pay
the Eroritas agreed on a monthly accumulated rentals, damages, and
rent of Twenty Thousand Pesos attorney’s fees. The RTC also prohibited the
(P20,000.00), but had failed to defendants from accepting enrolees to the
pay rentals since 1990. San Mariano Academy. CA affirmed.
· Spouses Dumlao asked the
petitioners to vacate the property. Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction.
Although the Spouses Erorita
wanted to comply, they could not Ruling:
immediately close the school NO, the complaint clearly contained the
without clearance from the elements of an unlawful detainer, thus
Department of Education, should have been filed with the MTC.
Culture, and Sports to whom
they are accountable. Spouses To make a case for unlawful detainer, the
Dumlao filed a complaint for complaint must allege that: (a) initially, the
recovery of possession before the defendant lawfully possessed the property,
RTC against the defendants. either by contract or by plaintiff’s tolerance;
· RTC had jurisdiction because (b) the plaintiff notified the defendant that
this case involves issues other his right of possession is terminated; (c) the
than physical possession defendant remained in possession and
deprived plaintiff of its enjoyment; and (d)
Petitioner’s argument/s: the plaintiff filed a complaint within one
· The Spouses Erorita countered year from the last demand on defendant to
that the Dumlaos allowed them vacate the property. A complaint for accion
to continue to run the school publiciana or recovery of possession of real
without rental out of goodwill property will not be considered as an action
and friendship. for unlawful detainer if any of these special
jurisdictional facts is omitted.
 heirs, within a period of five years
A review of the complaint shows that: (a) from the date of the conveyance.”
the owners, Spouses Dumlao, agreed to
allow the petitioners to continue operating During the pendency of the action, Bautista
the school on the disputed property; (b) in a died and was substituted by petitioner,
demand letter, the Spouses Dumlao told the Efipania. Spouses Lindo entered into a
petitioners to pay and/or vacate the property; compromise agreement with petitioners,
(c) the respondents refused to vacate the whereby they agree to cede to Epifania a
property; and (d) the Spouses Dumlao filed portion of the property as well as to waive,
the complaint within a year from the last abandon, surrender, and withdraw all claims
demand to vacate. and counterclaims against each other. RTC
approve the compromise agreement.

Petitioner’s argument/s: According to

Heirs of Alfredo Bautista v. Lindo
petitioners, what they seek is the
G.R. No. 208232
enforcement of their right to repurchase the
10 March 2014
subject property under Section 119 of CA
141.
Facts:
Bautista, petitioner’s predecessor, inherited Respondent’s argument/s: Other
a free-patent land located in Davao Oriental. respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss
A few years later, he subdivided the alleging lack of jurisdiction of the RTC on
property and sold it to several vendees, the ground that the complaint failed to state
herein respondents, via a notarized deed of the value of the property sought to be
absolute sale. Two months later, the recovered and alleges that the total value of
certificate of title was canceled and Transfer the properties in issue is only P16,500 pesos.
Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in RTC ruled in favor of the respondent
favor of the vendees. dismissing the case.

Bautista filed a complaint for repurchase Issue: WON RTC erred in granting the
against respondents before the RTC, motion for the dismissal of the case on the
anchoring his cause of action on Section 119 ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141, subject matter.
otherwise known as the “Public Land Act,”
which reads: Ruling:
NO, the Court rules that the complaint to
“SECTION 119. Every conveyance redeem a land subject of a free patent is a
of land acquired under the free patent civil action incapable of pecuniary
or homestead provisions, when estimation. It is a well-settled rule that
proper, shall be subject to repurchase jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
by the applicant, his widow, or legal allegations in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. In this regard,
the Court revisited its ruling in Russell v. Petitioner’s Argument:
Vestil, where "in determining whether an a. He owned the land in question and
action is one the subject matter of which is demanded that the respondent-
not capable of pecuniary estimation this appellee
Court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal The Respondent-appellee through Diaz filed
action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for an ejectment complaint before the Manila
the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is MeTC against the petitioner-appellant. The
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, court granted it in favor of the respondent
and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal appellee.
courts or in the RTCs would depend on the
amount of the claim." But where the basic Issue: WON failure to present proof of
issue is something other than the right to counsel to represent the respondent affect
recover a sum of money, where the money the standing of the case in court?
claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, Ruling:
this Court has considered such actions as
cases where the subject of the litigation may The effect of a complaint filed by one who
not be estimated in terms of money, and, has not proven his authority to represent a
hence, are incapable of pecuniary plaintiff in filing action is that of a
estimation. complaint that is not filed. In Tamondong v.
CA, the court said it produced no legal
effect.
Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles
Hence, in the case at bar, the complaint
G.R. No. 171219
since the court has no jurisdiction over the
September 3, 2012
complaint and the plaintiff

Doctrine: The failure to present/absence of

proof of counsel to represent a plaintiff in a
complaint produces no legal effect; therefore
the court cannot claim jurisdiction over the
complaint nor the plaintiff Heirs of Julao vs. De Jesus
G.R. No. 176020
Facts: September 29, 2014

Respondent-appellee is one of the owners of

a parcel of land in Sampaloc Manila which Doctrine: In an action for recovery of
was occupied by One Galiga between 1979- possession, the assessed value of the
1993 under a lease contract
property sought to be recovered determines RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. CA
the court’s jurisdiction. reversed the decision on two grounds: (1)
failure on the part of petitioners to identify
Facts: the property sought to be recovered; and (2)
Telesforo Julao filed before DENR two lack of jurisdiction.
Townsite Sales Applications. Upon his
death, his applications were transferred to Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction
his heirs. Solito Julao (Solito) executed a
Deed of Transfer of Rights, transferring his Ruling:
hereditary share in the property to NO, the Court held that in an action for
respondent spouses De Jesus. Respondent recovery of possession, the assessed value of
spouses constructed a house on the property the property sought to be recovered
they acquired from Solito. Solito then went determines the court’s jurisdiction.
missing. Original Certificate of Title
covering a 641-square meter property, was In this case, for the RTC to exercise
issued in favor of the heirs of Telesforo. The jurisdiction, the assessed value of the subject
heirs of Telesforo filed before the RTC a property must exceed P20,000.00. Since
Complaint or Recovery of Possession of petitioners failed to allege in their Complaint
Real Property against respondent spouses. the assessed value of the subject property,
the CA correctly dismissed the Complaint as
Petitioner’s argument/s: Petitioners petitioners failed to establish that the RTC
alleged that they are the true and lawful had jurisdiction over it. In fact, since the
owners of a 641-square meter parcel of land assessed value of the property was not
and that the subject property originated from alleged, it cannot be determined which trial
TSA No. V-2132; that respondent spouses’ court had original and exclusive jurisdiction
house encroached on 70 square meters of the over the case.
subject property, among others.
In an action to recover, the property must be
Respondent’s argument/s: Spouses refused identified. Moreover, Article 434 of the
to accede to the demand, insisting that they Civil Code states that “in an action to
acquired the subject property from recover, the property must be identified, and
petitioners' brother, Solito, by virtue of a the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his
Deed of Transfer of Rights and that in the title and not on the weakness of the
Deed of Transfer of Rights, Solito expressly defendant’s claim.” The plaintiff, therefore,
transferred in favor of respondent spouses is duty-bound to clearly identify the land
his hereditary share in the parcel of land and sought to be recovered, in accordance with
that respondent spouses have no valid claim the title on which he anchors his right of
over the subject property because it is ownership.66 It bears stressing that the
covered by a separate application. failure of the plaintiff to establish the
identity of the property claimed is fatal to
his case.
In this case, petitioners failed to identify the
property they seek to recover as they failed Issue:WON CA erred in upholding the motu
to describe the location, the area, as well as proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint
the boundaries thereof. In fact, as aptly
pointed out by the CA, no survey plan was Ruling:
presented by petitioners to prove that
respondent spouses actually encroached The Court said the petition is meritorious.
upon the 70-square meter portion of The general rule is the grounds in Section 1
petitioners’ property. Failing to prove their of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court must be
allegation, petitioners are not entitled to the invoked by the party-litifan as in a motion to
relief prayed for in their Complaint. dismiss or in the answer, otherwise the
grounds are deemed waived. An exception
to this is the courts may motu proprio order
the dismissal on cases of grounds of lack of
Lansangan v. Caisip
jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis
GR No. 212987
pendentia, res judicata, and prescription of
August 6, 2018
action, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court
Doctrine: Failure to raise the ground of non
compliance with a precondition i.e. In the case at bar, the motu proprio dismissal
barangay conciliation, when not raised in the of the complaint was due the petitioner’s
earliest opportunity in a response or motion failure to refer the matter to barangay
to dismiss gives an effect that it has been conciliation proceedings which is required
waived. Hence, the court cannot be stopped as a precondition under Section 412 (a) or
to act on the matter. RA 7160 to filing the complaint

Facts: Normally, non compliance with the

condition precedent could affect sufficiency
Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of of plaintiff’s cause of action due to
money and damages in 2012 before the prematurity but it does not prevent the court
MCTC after the respondent executed a from exercising its power of adjudication
promissory note but defaulted in his over the case before it.
obligation
In Banares II v. Balising, the non referral for
MCTC motu proprio dismissed the a case for barangay conciliation when
complaint for violation of the Local required by the law is not jurisdictional in
Government Code which require prior nature, and therefore be deemed waived if
referral of dispute between residents of the not raise in a motion to dismiss or in a
same barangay for conciliation proceedings responsive pleading
before filing a case in court. RTC and CA
affirmed the decision.
The ground for non-compliance with a recovery of possession before the RTC
condition precedent was not invoked in against the spouses Erorita. RTC declared
the earliest opportunity, hence it was a petitioners in default and ordered the
grave error for courts to dismiss the Spouses Dumlao to vacate and pay the
petition. Case was remanded to the MCTC. rentals, damages and fees.
The petitioners appealed to the CA.

Casey: Petitioner’s arguments:

Spouses Erorita essentially argue that the
Spouses Erorita v. Spouses Dumlao,
G.R. No. 195477 RTC had no jurisdiction because the
January 25, 2016 allegations in the complaint show a case for
unlawful detainer
TOPIC: Estoppel Jurisdiction
Respondent’s arguments:
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, lack of
Spouses Dumlao argue that the RTC had
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
jurisdiction because this case involves issues
raised at any time, or even for the first time
other than physical possession; (b) even
on appeal. An exception to this rule is the
assuming the RTC initially had no
principle of estoppel by laches.
jurisdiction, the petitioners’ active
participation during the proceedings bar
FACTS: The Spouses Dumlao bought the
them from attacking jurisdiction
property in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale
on because the former owners, Spouses The CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The
Erorita, failed to redeem it, the title was CA ruled that the applicable law on
consolidated in the buyers’ name. The San jurisdiction when the complaint was filed,
Mariano Academy structures are built on the was RA 7691 which provides that in civil
property. The parties agreed to allow the actions involving a real property’s title or
Spouses Erorita to operate on the school possession, jurisdiction depends on the
property as the school administrators. The property’s assessed value and location — if
Spouses Dumlao alleged that the Eroritas the assessed value exceeds P50,000.00 in
agreed on a monthly rent of P20,000.00, but Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of
had failed to pay rentals since 1990. The Metro Manila, the RTC has jurisdiction. If
Spouses Erorita countered that the Dumlaos the assessed value does not exceed these
allowed them to continue to run the school amounts, then, the MTC has jurisdiction.
without rental out of goodwill and
friendship. Because the tax declaration showed that the
assessed value of the property and its
On 2002, the Spouses Dumlao asked the improvements exceeded P20,000.00, the CA
petitioners to vacate the property, the concluded that the RTC had jurisdiction.
petitioners were not able to comply. In 2004,
Spouses Dumlao filed a complaint for
ISSUE: W/N jurisdiction over the subject of an answer and the failure to attend the
matter may be raised at any time? pretrial do not constitute the active
participation in judicial proceedings
RULING: YES. As a general rule, lack of contemplated in Tijam.
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any time, or even for the first time Thus, the general rule should apply. The
on appeal. An exception to this rule is the petitioners timely questioned the RTC’s
principle of estoppel by laches. jurisdiction.

Laches refers to the “negligence or omission

to assert a right within a reasonable length of
time, warranting a presumption that the Lansangan v. Caisip, G.R. No.212987,
party entitled to assert it either has 6 August 2018
abandoned it or declined to assert it. When Topic: Katarungang Pambarangay (Sec.
lack of jurisdiction is raised before the 399- 422, Local Government Code)
appellate court, no considerable length of
time had elapsed for laches to apply. DOCTRINE: Disputes between persons
actually residing in the same barangay shall
Estoppel by laches may only be invoked to be brought for amicable settlement before
bar the defense of lack of jurisdiction if the the lupon of said barangay.
factual milieu is analogous to Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968). In that FACTS: Petitioner, a resident from
case, lack of jurisdiction was raised for the Concepcion, Tarlac, alleged that respondent,
first time after almost fifteen (15) years after a resident from Concepcion, Tarlac,
the questioned ruling had been rendered and executed a promissory note in her favor in
after the movant actively participated in the amount of 2,522 payable in 3
several stages of the proceedings. It was installments. Respondent refused to heed to
only invoked, too, after the CA rendered a petitioners demand. MCTC declared
decision adverse to the movant. In Figueroa respondent in default after he did not file
v. People, SC ruled that failure to assail any responsive pleadings. The case was
jurisdiction during the trial is not sufficient submitted for resolution.
for estoppel by laches to apply.
MCTC motu proprio dismissed for failure to
The factual setting of this present case is not comply with the provisions of RA 7160 or
similar to Tijam so as to trigger the the Local Government Code which requires
application of the estoppel by laches the prior referral of the dispute between
doctrine. As in Figueroa, the present residents of the same barangay for
petitioners assailed the RTC’s jurisdiction in conciliation proceedings before the filing of
their appeal before the CA. Asserting lack of a case in court. MCTC opined that
jurisdiction on appeal before the CA does petitioner's failure to refer the matter for
not constitute laches. Furthermore, the filing barangay conciliation proceedings when
both parties are from Concepcion, Tarlac, settlement before the lupon of said
rendered it without jurisdiction to rule on barangay" The primordial objective of a
her complaint. prior barangay conciliation is to reduce the
number of court litigations and prevent the
ISSUE: W/N CA erred in upholding the deterioration of the quality of justice which
motu proprio dismissal of petitioner's has been brought by the indiscriminate filing
complaint? of cases in courts. A party's failure to
comply with this before filing a case in court
RULING: YES. The ground of non- would render his complaint dismissible.
compliance with a condition precedent
should be invoked at the earliest In this case, the motu proprio dismissal of
opportunity, as in fact, respondent was the complaint was anchored on petitioner's
declared in default for failure to file a failure to refer the matter for barangay
responsive pleading despite due notice. conciliation proceedings which in certain
There, it was grave error for the courts to instances, is a condition precedent before
order for the dismissal of petitioner's filing the case in court. However, it should
complaint on the said ground. Hence, the be raised at the earliest opportunity.
Courts finds it proper that the case be
reinstated and remanded to the MCTC,
which is the court of origin. Chavez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
159411, 18 March 2005
As a general rule, Section 1, Rule 16 of the
TOPIC: Katarungang Pambarangay (Sec.
Rules of Court may be invoked by party-
399- 422, Local Government Code)
litigant at the earliest opportunity, as in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer;
DOCTRINE: An amicable settlement
otherwise, such grounds are deemed
reached after barangay conciliation
waived. Under Section 1, Rule 16 (j) of the
proceedings has the force and effect of a
Rules of Court, a motion to dismissed may
final judgment of a court if not repudiated or
be raised when a condition precedent for
a petition to nullify the same is filed before
filing the claim has not been complied
the proper city or municipal court within ten
with.
(10) days from its date; Settlement may be
Exceptions, however, the courts may order
enforced by execution by the lupong
motu proprio dismissal of a case on the
tagapamayapa within six (6) months from its
grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the
date, or by action in the appropriate city or
subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata,
municipal court, if beyond the six-month
and prescription of action, pursuant to
period.
Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
FACTS: Petitioner Chavez and respondent
As Section 409 (a) of RA 7610, "disputes
Trillana entered into a contract of lease
between persons actually residing in the
whereby the former leased to the latter his
same barangay shall be brought for amicable
fishpond for a term of six (6) years. ex-parte and a decision was rendered in
Paragraph 5 of the contract further provided favor of the respondent. Petitioner appealed
that respondent shall undertake all to the CA which only modified the decision
construction and preservation of of the RTC. The petitioner's motion for
improvements in the fishpond that may be reconsideration was denied.
destroyed during the period of the lease, at
his expense, without reimbursement from Petitioner's Argument:
petitioner. Petitioner contends that the CA erred in
ruling that the RTC of Valenzuela City had
In August 1996, a powerful typhoon hit the jurisdiction over the action filed by
country which damaged the subject respondent considering that the subject
fishpond. Respondent did not immediately matter thereof, his alleged violation of the
undertake the necessary repairs as the water lease contract with respondent, was already
level was still high. Three (3) weeks later, amicably settled. He argued that respondent
respondent was informed by a barangay should have followed the procedure for
councilor that major repairs were being enforcement of the amicable settlement as
undertaken in the fishpond with the use of a provided for in the Revised Katarungang
crane. Respondent found out that the repairs Pambarangay Law.
were at the instance of petitioner who had
grown impatient with his delay in ISSUE: W/N petitioner is correct
commencing the work.
RULING: NO. The availability of the right
Respondent filed a complaint before the of rescission is apparent from the wording of
Office of the Barangay Captain of Taliptip, Sec. 417 itself which provides that the
Bulacan, Bulacan. He complained about the amicable settlement “may” be enforced by
unauthorized repairs undertaken by execution by the lupon within six (6) months
petitioner, the ouster of his personnel from from its date or by action in the appropriate
the leased premises and its unlawful taking city or municipal court, if beyond that
by petitioner despite their valid and period. The use of the word “may” clearly
subsisting lease contract. After conciliation makes the procedure provided in the
proceedings, an agreement was reached. Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law
Alleging non-compliance by petitioner with directory or merely optional in nature.
their lease contract and the foregoing
“Kasunduan,” respondent filed a complaint Thus, although the “Kasunduan” executed
before the RTC of Valenzuela City. by petitioner and respondent before the
Office of the Barangay Captain had the
Respondent prayed that the amounts be force and effect of a final judgment of a
awarded him. Petitioner filed his answer but court, petitioner’s non-compliance paved the
failed to submit the required pretrial brief way for the application of Art. 2041 under
and to attend the pretrial conference. Hence, which respondent may either enforce the
respondent was allowed to submit evidence compromise, following the procedure laid
out in the Revised Katarungang not contrary to law, public order, public
Pambarangay Law, or regard it as rescinded policy, morals or good customs is a valid
and insist upon his original demand. contract which is the law between the parties
Respondent chose the latter option when he themselves. It has upon them the effect and
instituted for recovery of unrealized profits authority of res judicata even if not
and reimbursement of advance rentals, judicially approved, and cannot be lightly
moral and exemplary damages, and set aside or disturbed except for vices of
attorney’s fees. Respondent was not limited consent and forgery.
to claiming P150,000.00 because although
he agreed to the amount in the “Kasunduan,” However, if one of the parties fails or
it is axiomatic that a compromise settlement refuses to abide by the compromise, the
is not an admission of liability but merely a other party may either enforce the
recognition that there is a dispute and an compromise or regard it as rescinded and
which the parties hope to prevent by making insist upon his original demand. This is
impending litigation reciprocal concessions, because he may regard the compromise as
adjusting their respective positions in the already rescinded by the breach thereof of
hope of gaining balanced by the danger of the other party.
losing. Under the “Kasunduan,” respondent
was only required to execute a waiver of all Denila v. Republic
possible claims arising from the lease GR No. 206077
contract if petitioner fully complies with his July 15, 2020
obligations thereunder. It is undisputed that Topic: Jurisdiction over the Issues
herein petitioner did not.
Doctrine: Failure to comply with any of the
General rule is: jurisdictional requirements for a petition for
The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay reconstitution or other special proceedings
Law provides that an amicable settlement renders the whole proceedings null and
reached after barangay conciliation void, as it fails to confer proper jurisdiction
proceedings has the force and effect of a over the trial courts.
final judgment of a court if not repudiated or Facts: The OCTs for several parcels of land
a petition to nullify the same is filed before owned by Constancio and Isabel Luna were
the proper city or municipal court within ten lost sometime after the Second World War
(10) days from its date. It further provides when both passed away with no direct heirs.
that the settlement may be enforced by In 2001, the Heirs of Constancio Guzman,
execution by the lupong tagapamayapa Inc. (HCGI), a corporation whose
within six (6) months from its date, or by stakeholders were great nieces and nephews
action in the appropriate city or municipal of Constancio, filed for petitions of
court, if beyond the six-month period. This Reconstitution for the parcels of land, which
special provision follows the general precept was denied Davao’s acting Register of
enunciated in Article 2037 of the Civil Deeds for the reason that the OCTs being
Code. A compromise agreement which is
reconstituted were not mutilated, destroyed
nor lost but had been subject to a series of Issue: WON the RTC exceeded its
transfers. The RTC likewise dismissed the jurisdiction in granting petitioner’s
petition for the same reason. The HCGI reconstitution petition despite her failure to
raised an issue to the Supreme Court for comply with some jurisdictional
certiorari, but was likewise denied for the requirements.
disregard for the hierarchy of courts and the
lack of proof that the OCTs were destroyed Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterates that
or lost. jurisdiction is the basic foundation of any
judicial proceeding as it directly relates to
An amended reconstitution petition the power and authority such courts may
for the same lots was filed by petitioner hold. Without it, a judgment rendered by
Denila, who alleged that a portion of
Constancio’s estate belonged to her after a courts is null and void, as a void judgment
Bellie Artigas, who was entitled to 40% of does not confer any rights or create any
the land as Constancio’s attorney-in-fact, obligations.
sold her the share. The RTC granted her
petition and reconstitution was ordered. The Supreme Court discusses the
aspects of jurisdiction and the source of
After some time, the respondent filed where jurisdiction may be found. These are,
for a petition of relief which was denied by namely:
the courts as the petition had been filed 16
days after the reglementary period. The a. Jurisdiction over subject matter;
respondent then filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals in b. Jurisdiction over the parties;
consideration of the HCGI ruling, and the
fact that the petition for relief was valid as c. Jurisdiction over the issues; and
the days were counted from the receipt of
d. Jurisdiction over the res or thing
the OSG and not the Davao City’s Office of
the City Prosecutor. The petition prospered Furthermore, the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals ruled that the delves into the nature of special proceedings
judge in the amended reconstitution case in comparison to ordinary civil actions.
acted with grave abuse of discretion for the Where in ordinary actions there is a
misruling and the denial of the respondent’s definition to the parties involved, i.e. the
petition for relief. The respondent’s petition existence of a complainant which seeks the
is granted and the previous decisions are enforcement or protection of a right, parties
voided and set aside. in special proceedings often seek to declare
or make valid a status, right or fact. As such,
The petitioner, raised to this court a
the trial court must have jurisdiction to take
petition for certiorari stating that the Court cognizance of such petition or application in
of Appeals committed a grave abuse of compliance with the specific procedure
discretion by reversing the RTC’s denial of provided by law. The authority to proceed is
the petition for relief and that they conferred by a statute which is why the
committed an error in nullifying the granting manner of obtaining jurisdiction is
of her reconstitution petition.
mandatory and the same must be strictly
complied with. Issue:
WON the warrant of arrest was valid; and
Since reconstitution of a title is a
special proceeding, the petitioner must first WON the petitioner may be allowed to
allege and prove certain jurisdictional facts obtain relief without submitting himself to
before a trial court may acquire jurisdiction. the Court’s jurisdiction (pertinent issue)
In the case at bar, the Supreme Court finds
that the petitioner was unable to strictly
comply with the jurisdictional fact Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterates the
requirement prescribed by law. As such, requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction and
non-compliance of the same in special how such jurisdiction is manifested with the
proceedings such as the reconstitution, following:
affects the trial court’s jurisdiction over the
issue. · Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or
petitioner, upon their filing of the
The Supreme Court denies the complaint
petition and affirms the CA ruling.
· Jurisdiction over defendant or
De Joya v. Marquez respondent, upon their voluntary
GR No. 162416 appearance or submission to court, or
January 31, 2006 through the court’s summons
Topic: Jurisdiction over the Res · Jurisdiction over subject matter,
Doctrine: Jurisdiction over the res is which is conferred by law
acquired by the actual or constructive
seizure by the court of the thing in question, · Jurisdiction over the issues of the
case, which are determined by the
thus placing it in custodia legis, as in
pleadings filed in the case by the parties,
attachment or garnishment; or by provision or by any pre-trial stipulations.
of law which recognizes in the court the
power to deal with the property or subject · Jurisdiction over the res, which is
matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as acquired by actual or constructive
seizure of the thing in question, placing
in land registration proceedings or suits
it in the court’s custodia legis
involving civil status or real property in the
Philippines of a non-resident defendant. In the case at bar, the court has acquired
Facts: Petitioner De Joya filed for certiorari jurisdiction over the res, with the thing
with this Court to nullify respondent judge’s being petitioner’s fraudulent corporation as
issuance of a warrant of arrest against Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code states that
a foreign corporation may be sued and
petitioner. Petitioner argues that respondent
proceeded against by our courts of
failed to find the existence of probable cause administrative tribunals.
that justifies the warrant of arrest against
him., citing Sec. 6 Rule 112 of the Revised Furthermore, the Supreme Court sees no
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner also exceptional reason to allow petitioner to
refused to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction. obtain relief without submitting himself over
their jurisdiction, and given that jurisdiction
over the res had already been acquired, the Ruling: The Supreme Court is of the
petitioner’s evasive stance instead shows an opinion that the Surety is barred by estoppel
intent to circumvent and frustrate the legal
by laches from invoking their plea for the
process. The petition is dismissed and the
warrant of arrest is upheld. purpose of annulling their liability. As
already stated, the action commenced in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu on July 19,
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 1948, that is, almost fifteen years before the
GR No. L-21450 Surety filed its motion to dismiss on January
April 15, 1968 12, 1963 raising the question of lack of
Topic: Estoppel Jurisdiction jurisdiction for the first time.
Doctrine: Parties may be barred by laches
The Supreme Court defines laches as
from questioning a court’s jurisdiction over a general sense of failure or neglect for an
subject matter, which are those conferred by unreasonable period of time, which could
law. have been prevented or conducted earlier
Facts: After the passing of RA No. 296 or had a proper sense of due diligence been
the Judiciary Act of 1948, the petitioners, exercised. In other words, it is negligence or
Sps. Tijam filed a civil case against the omission to assert a right within a
reasonable amount of time which warrants a
respondents Sps. Sibonghanoy for an presumption that the party entitled to the
outstanding debt of PHP 1908. The court right has abandoned or declined to assert the
issued a writ of attachment against the right.
properties of the defendant, but was
dissolved as the respondents filed a counter- The Supreme Court ruled that the
CFI, despite not having jurisdiction as per
bond with Manila Surety and Fidelity Co.,
RA No. 926, acquired jurisdiction through
Inc., a non-life insurance business. The case estoppel of laches. The CFI ruling is
went to court and the CFI ruled in favor of affirmed and the petition is denied.
the petitioners. A writ of execution was
issued in favor of the petitioners.
Manila Surety filed a motion to
quash but was denied. 14 years later, they
appealed with the Court of Appeals, who
affirmed the CFI decision. After this, Manila
Surety filed a motion to dismiss, now this
time citing a lack of jurisdiction as the CFI
of Cebu does not have jurisdiction over
debts that do not exceed PHP 2000, instead
placing this to the jurisdiction of the lower
courts.
Issue: WON the CFI validly acquired
jurisdiction over the case.