Alvero vs. De la Rosa, 76 Phil 428 1. Did Fredesvindo S.

Alvero timely
perfect his appeal from the judgment
FACTS: of the trial court?
The case at hand involves Fredesvindo S.
Alvero as the petitioner and M.L. de la Rosa, 2. Was there any grave abuse of
Judge of the First Instance of Manila, along discretion committed by the trial court
with respondents Jose R. Victoriano and in dismissing Alvero's appeal?
Margarita Villarica. The events leading to this
case transpired in June 1945 when Jose R. RULING:
Victoriano filed a complaint in the Court of The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for
First Instance of Manila against Alvero and certiorari filed by Fredesvindo S. Alvero,
Villarica. The case stemmed from two primary affirming the lower court's decision. The Court
causes of action: the first sought to affirm a ruled that Alvero failed to perfect his appeal on
contract of sale of two parcels of land time and that there was no grave abuse of
allegedly sold by Villarica to Victoriano in discretion by the trial court.
October 1940, and the second to declare RATIO:
Alvero's subsequent sale of this property to be The Supreme Court explained that the rules
void. The land, comprising 480 square meters concerning the perfection of appeals are
located in Manotoc subdivision, Balintawak, absolute and mandatory. Although Alvero filed
was sold by Villarica to Alvero for P100,000 in his notice of appeal and record on appeal
Japanese military notes on December 31, within the statutory period, he did not comply
1944. with the requirement to file the appeal bond on
Villarica's answer to the complaint admitted time, which was deemed essential for the
this sale but sought to repurchase the property appeal to be considered valid. The Court held
for P5,000, a offer Alvero refused. Alvero that Alvero's explanation regarding the death
counterclaimed for monthly rent and of his lawyer's wife did not constitute a valid
damages, asserting exclusive ownership. On basis for the delay in filing the bond, as he did
November 16, 1945, the trial court ruled in not seek an extension of time prior to the lapse
favor of Victoriano, establishing his legal of the original filing period. Furthermore, the
ownership based on the original 1940 contract Court pointed out that the failure to comply
and prior possession, while dismissing with procedural requirements does not equate
Alvero's counterclaim. to an irreparable disadvantage to Alvero,
especially since Villarica demonstrated
Following the ruling, Alvero filed for readiness to address any damages. The
reconsideration on December 27, 1945, which decision emphasized that strict adherence to
was denied on January 3, 1946. Alvero procedural rules is vital for the orderly
communicated his appeal on January 8, 1946, administration of justice.
but failed to submit the required P60 appeal
bond until January 15, 1946. This delay led DOCTRINE:
Victoriano to file a petition to dismiss the This case reflects the principle that
appeal. The trial court dismissed Alvero's compliance with procedural rules, as set forth
appeal on January 17, 1946, citing the in the Rules of Court, is not merely
untimeliness of the bond. Alvero then filed a discretionary but mandatory. Timely filing of
petition for certiorari on January 29, 1946, the appeal bond is crucial for perfecting an
prompting this review by the higher court. appeal. Failure to comply within the stipulated
timeframe results in the judgment attaining
finality. The ruling emphasizes the court's duty
ISSUE: to maintain order and expedience in judicial

1 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

proceedings, and it asserts that personal ruling on September 28, 1995. The petitioners
circumstances, while tragic, cannot infringe received this decision on October 5, 1995.
upon established legal protocols. The Court After the entry of judgment was issued on
firmly believes such rules are indispensable in March 13, 1996, the Magdangals claimed that
preventing unnecessary delays and ensuring the 120-day period for Tan to redeem had
the effective administration of justice. expired, as they were asserting their
ownership based on the decision's finality. Tan
Jr. filed for a writ of execution and
Tan vs. CA, 373 SCRA 524 subsequently deposited the repurchase
amount, asserting that the redemption period
FACTS: should start from the date of entry of
The case involves Jaime Tan, Jr., acting as the judgment.
judicial administrator of the intestate estate of The trial court ruled in favor of Tan, Jr.,
Jaime C. Tan, who is the petitioner in this validating his deposit as a timely redemption,
matter. The respondents are Jose A. but this order was contested by the
Magdangal and Estrella Magdangal. The Magdangals. Their motion for consolidation
dispute centers on a parcel of land designated and a writ of possession was denied by the
as Lot No. 645-C, situated in Bunawan, Davao court. However, the Court of Appeals ruled
City, measuring approximately 34,829 square against Tan, leading to the petition now before
meters. The property was initially covered by the Supreme Court for review.
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-72067,
registered in the name of Jaime C. Tan, who ISSUE:
was married to Praxedes V. Tan. On January 22, 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling
1981, Jaime C. Tan executed a deed of that the redemption period for Tan, Jr.
absolute sale for the property to the commenced from the date of
Magdangals for a consideration of Php 59,200. judgment rather than the date of entry
Alongside this deed, the parties entered into a of judgment?
separate agreement granting Tan the right to
redeem the property within one year. 2. Was the petitioner denied due process
However, Tan failed to redeem the property by the Court of Appeals in its handling
before he passed away on January 4, 1988. of the case?
Subsequently, on May 2, 1988, Tan's heirs filed
a suit against the Magdangals at the Regional 3. Did the Court of Appeals misinterpret
applicable precedents regarding the
Trial Court of Davao City for reformation of the
instrument, claiming that the deed of absolute finality of the trial court's decision?
sale was actually an equitable mortgage. Just Ruling:
hours after the complaint was filed, the
Magdangals had Tan's title canceled and 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
obtained TCT No. T-134470 in their name. The Tan, Jr., stating that the redemption
trial court eventually ruled on June 4, 1991, in period was correctly reckoned from
favor of Tan, Jr., declaring the deed of sale as the entry of judgment, thus validating
an equitable mortgage and ordering the his redemption.
plaintiffs to pay the Magdangals the original 2. The Court found that the petitioner
price plus interest. The ruling required that TCT was not denied due process in the
No. T-134470 be deemed null and void and the Court of Appeals' proceedings.
original title be reinstated after payment.
The Magdangals appealed this decision, but
the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's

2 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

 3. The decision of the Court of Appeals Philippines (CAAP) posted an Invitation to Pre-
was annulled and set aside, with the qualify and Bid for the development,
orders of the trial court reinstated. operations, and maintenance of six airports:
Bacolod-Silay, Davao, Iloilo, Laguindingan,
RATIO: New Bohol (Panglao), and Puerto Princesa.
The Supreme Court sought to clarify the The total cost of these projects amounted to
procedural rule regarding the finality of PHP 116.23 billion. These airports were to be
judgments and the commencement of bundled into two groups for bidding purposes:
redemption periods. It highlighted that under Bundle 1 (Bacolod-Silay and Iloilo) costing
the previous procedural rules, specifically PHP 50.66 billion and Bundle 2 (Davao,
Rule 51, the entry of judgment served as the Laguindingan, and New Bohol) costing PHP
starting point for reckoning appeal and 59.66 billion. Puerto Princesa Airport was
subsequent actions like redemption. The excluded from the bundling. The concession
court ruled that the Magdangals' ownership period was set for 30 years, and the projects
claims could not be entertained as final were to be awarded through competitive
without the due process associated with bidding consistent with the BOT Law and its
proper entry of judgment. Furthermore, implementing rules.
applying the new revision of the rules
retroactively would impair Tan's right to On March 27, 2015, petitioner GIOS-SAMAR,
redeem the property since he had relied on the Inc., represented by its chairperson Gerardo
law and procedural rules as they stood at the M. Malinao, a non-governmental organization
time of the original decisions. The court of subsistence farmers and fisherfolk affected
emphasized the importance of fairness and by Typhoon Yolanda, filed a petition for
equity by allowing Tan to redeem the property, prohibition seeking to enjoin the DOTC and
especially given its significance as an asset CAAP from proceeding with the bundled
left by his father. bidding. The petitioner raised constitutional
objections, asserting that the bundling
DOCTRINE: violated the anti-dummy provisions and the
This case reaffirms the principle that requirement for Filipino participation in public
procedural laws, particularly regarding the utilities (Art. XII, Sec. 11, 1987 Constitution),
finality and entry of judgments, are typically the constitutional prohibition against
applicable to pending matters and monopolies and combinations in restraint of
emphasizes that retroactive application of trade (Art. XII, Sec. 19), and argued that
new procedural laws can result in unjust bundling would exclude medium Filipino firms
outcomes. The Supreme Court maintains that from bidding due to the high cost. The
litigants should not be penalized for adhering petitioner also alleged grave abuse of
to existing rules, asserting that substantive discretion by the PBAC in bundling the
rights, such as the right to redeem property, projects without legal authority. The
must be recognized and protected against government respondents claimed the petition
procedural changes that could unfairly
was premature, the petitioner lacked legal
disadvantage a party. standing and argued that there was no
Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, GR No. 217158, constitutional or statutory prohibition on
12 March 2019 bundling the projects. The case was brought
directly before the Supreme Court invoking the
FACTS: doctrine of transcendental importance.
On December 15, 2014, the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) ISSUE:
and the Civil Aviation Authority of the

3 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

 1. Is the bundling of the six regional jurisdiction over petitions for extraordinary
airport projects into two large bundles writs, including prohibition, direct recourse is
for bidding constitutional under the limited to pure questions of law without
1987 Constitution? disputed factual issues. Monopolies are not
per se unconstitutional; exclusivity granted in
2. Does the bundling violate the public utilities concessions is consistent with
constitutional provisions on established jurisprudence (Anglo-Fil Trading
monopolies and combinations in Corp. v. Lazaro). Anti-competitive behavior is
restraint of trade? governed by RA No. 10667 (Philippine
3. Does the bundling contravene the anti- Competition Act), which requires evidentiary
dummy law and the constitutional inquiries into market dominance and abusive
mandate for Filipino ownership and conduct. The petitioner’s failure to present
participation in public utilities? ultimate facts or concrete evidence made the
case not ripe for the Court’s initial
4. Did the DOTC and CAAP commit grave determination. The Court is not a trier of facts
abuse of discretion in bundling the and cannot resolve factual disputes at first
projects without legal authority? instance. The Anti-Dummy Law requires a
5. Is direct recourse to the Supreme showing of simulated Filipino ownership,
Court justified invoking the doctrine of which petitioner did not allege. The
transcendental importance despite constitutional doctrine of hierarchy of courts
underlying factual issues? is a constitutional filtering mechanism to
ensure efficient use of judicial resources,
RULING: allowing the Supreme Court to focus on
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition due fundamental legal questions.
to the presence of underlying factual issues
which the Court is not equipped to resolve in DOCTRINE:
the first instance. It held that the allegations of The decision emphasized the following
monopoly or restraint of trade require factual doctrines:
proof, such as defining the relevant market, (1) The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and
establishing dominant position, and abusive should only resolve questions of law, while
conduct, which necessitate proper factual trial courts should determine factual issues;
inquiry at trial courts. The Court ruled that the (2) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is a
Anti-Dummy Law and constitutional constitutional and procedural rule designed to
provisions on Filipino ownership were not maintain judicial efficiency and respect for the
violated as petitioner failed to allege sufficient judicial structure, requiring exhaustion of
factual basis. It found no proof of grave abuse remedies in lower courts when factual issues
of discretion by the respondents. The Court are implicated; (3) Monopolies resulting from
also reaffirmed the constitutional principle of exclusive franchises in public utilities do not
hierarchy of courts, requiring that cases with violate the Constitution per se and are
factual disputes should proceed in lower consistent with sound public policy when
courts and that the Supreme Court resolves accompanied by public bidding and
questions of law. It denied the invocation of government regulation; (4) Legal conclusions
transcendental importance to bypass the without ultimate factual allegations are
hierarchy of courts when factual issues are insufficient to invoke the Court’s original
present. jurisdiction; (5) The Anti-Dummy Law and
constitutional ownership requirements must
RATIO: be grounded in demonstrable acts of evasion
The Court reasoned that while it has original or simulation, supported by facts; and (6) The

4 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

doctrine of transcendental importance cannot order (TRO) and later, a preliminary injunction
override the doctrine of hierarchy of courts against the implementation of NDs.
when factual issues exist.
In sum, this case reaffirmed that despite the The petitioners contended that the RTC lacked
expanded powers of the Supreme Court under jurisdiction over the matters and that the
the 1987 Constitution, strict adherence to issues should be handled through the proper
procedural doctrines ensures the proper administrative channels before the COA,
exercise of judicial power and prevents docket emphasizing that the decisions of provincial
congestion by filtering cases suitable for auditors were final and executory once not
adjudication by the Supreme Court. contested in proper time.
ISSUE:

Commission on Audit vs. Ferrer, GR No. 1. Did the RTC commit grave abuse of
218890, 24 November 2020 discretion in denying the petitioners'
motion to dismiss the petitions for
FACTS: certiorari and prohibition filed by the
The case revolves around a petition for private respondent?
certiorari and prohibition assailing the Orders
dated December 18, 2014, and May 6, 2015, 2. Was the private respondent's recourse
issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, to the RTC appropriate given the
Camarines Sur. The petitioners, the circumstances surrounding the
Commission on Audit (COA) represented by disallowances of government
Attorney Eleanor V. Echano and other expenditures?
provincial auditors (Felizardo B. Toquero, Jr., RULING:
Tita B. Embestro, Susie S. Laureano, Johanson The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling
V. Disuanco, and Adela A. Tabuzo), challenged in favor of the petitioners. It declared that the
the orders favoring the private respondent, COA had primary jurisdiction over matters
Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, Jr., a former pertaining to disallowances and that the RTC
Governor of Camarines Sur. The RTC had acted outside its authority by allowing the
denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed
Villafuerte's petitions, which sought judicial Villafuerte's petitions and affirmed the
intervention regarding Notices of Notices of Disallowance as final and
Disallowance (NDs) that the COA had issued executory.
due to various deficiencies in fund
disbursements during Villafuerte’s term from RATIO:
2006 to 2010. The Court held that the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction mandates that cases involving
The COA's audit revealed several irregularities, specialized determinations within the
including non-compliance with the expertise of an administrative agency, such as
Government Procurement Act (Republic Act COA, must first be resolved by that agency
No. 9184) and unnecessary expenditures, before escalating to the judicial system. This
leading to disallowances amounting to over doctrine serves to ensure that courts do not
Php 23 million. Villafuerte did not contest interfere with the functions and
these NDs before the COA, resulting in responsibilities assigned to specialized
Notices of Finality of Decision (NFDs) issued agencies by legislations such as the 1987
by the auditors. Instead, he filed petitions in Constitution and Presidential Decree No.
the RTC, resulting in a temporary restraining 1445, which collectively endow COA the
authority to audit government accounts and

5 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

disbursements comprehensively. The Court stems from a series of events that began on
explained that once the NDs were issued and October 21, 1972, when portions of RCBMI’s
became final and executory due to registered land, covered by Original Certificate
Villafuerte’s failure to properly appeal them, of Title No. 597, were awarded to Mariano
the RTC could not overturn these decisions. Marcos pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
27, known as the "Tenants Emancipation
The ruling underlined that allowing lower Decree." By 1980, RCBMI sought the
courts to entertain petitions concerning cancellation of these awards, arguing that the
issues within COA's exclusive domain would parcels were not used for rice production but
disrupt the integrity and efficiency of public instead dedicated to social and humanitarian
fund management processes, burden the programs. The Ministry of Agrarian Reform
courts disproportionately, and encourage (MAR) granted RCBMI’s petition in 1982,
other public officials to disregard appropriate nullifying one certificate of land transfer (CLT
administrative remedies. Moreover, it No. 0392296) due to the property's vacant
emphasized that the only avenue for judicial status. However, when the heirs of Marcos
review of COA decisions lies with the Supreme opposed this decision, their appeal was
Court, which is limited to situations where denied in 1986, citing laches. Despite the
grave abuse of discretion is evident, a MAR's cancellation order becoming final and
situation not found in the case before them. executory, the heirs continued to occupy the
DOCTRINE: property. Subsequently, RCBMI filed a
The case reinforces the principle that the complaint for a writ of preliminary injunction
Commission on Audit has primary jurisdiction and damages before the Provincial Agrarian
over matters involving the auditing and Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) on February 2,
disallowance of government expenditures. It 1994. The PARAD ruled in favor of RCBMI on
reaffirms that any recourse for disputing the July 24, 1995, ordering the heirs to vacate the
decisions of provincial auditors must be property, which was later affirmed by the
pursued through the proper administrative Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
processes, and any failure to do so results in Board (DARAB) in 2001. The heirs’ motions to
the finality of such disallowances. reconsider were denied, and a petition for
Furthermore, it illustrates the separation of review to the Court of Appeals (CA) ultimately
powers between administrative agencies and upheld RCBMI’s right to possession.
the judicial system, stressing that trial courts Despite wins in earlier rulings, RCBMI faced
should refrain from intervening in matters delays in getting a writ of execution, which
specifically reserved for specialized agencies. took nearly six years after their initial request.
A second motion for execution was delayed
further due to the heirs’ claim that the subject
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos vs. property was subject to the Comprehensive
Heirs of Marcos, GR No. 225971, 17 June Agrarian Reform Law (CARP) coverage.
2020 Numerous motions and delays ensued as the
FACTS: situation dragged over several years until the
The case, G.R. No. 225971, involves a legal PARAD granted RCBMI’s motion on February
dispute between The Roman Catholic Bishop 17, 2012. Yet, additional delays arose, and the
of Malolos, Inc. (RCBMI), represented by the PARAD eventually quashed the writ of
Most Reverend Bishop Jose F. Oliveros, D.D. execution based on the assertion that the five-
(Petitioner), and the heirs of Mariano Marcos, year execution period had elapsed. In
specifically represented by Francisca Marcos response, RCBMI contended that the delays
alias Kikay (Respondents). This legal matter were due to the heirs' opposition and actions.

6 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

RCBMI’s subsequent petition for certiorari and contributed to the ruling that such inaction
mandamus to the CA was dismissed, leading was indeed a grave abuse of discretion.
to the present case brought before the
Supreme Court. DOCTRINE:
The court underscored that in issues involving
ISSUE: administrative remedies, exceptions exist
when delays or unreasonable official inaction
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in occur, leading to irrevocable prejudice against
dismissing RCBMI's petition for the complainant. Furthermore, it reiterated
certiorari and mandamus under Rule the importance of prompt execution of
65 for non-exhaustion of decisions that have become final and
administrative remedies? executory, emphasizing that procedural rules
2. Did the PARAD act with excess of regarding execution are not mere formalities
jurisdiction in granting the Heirs of but crucial to upholding rights established
Marcos' motion to quash the writ of through due process.
execution and denying RCBMI's
motion for reconsideration?
Tan vs. Cinco, GR No. 213054, 15 June 2016
RULING:
FACTS:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of RCBMI, The case in question involves Teresita Tan as
granting the petition and reversing the CA's the petitioner and Jovencio F. Cinco, Simon
resolutions dated April 8, 2016, and July 20, Lori Holdings, Inc., Pentacapital Investment
2016. The Court reinstated the February 17,
Corporation, Fortunato G. Pe, Raymundo G.
2012 order of the PARAD, which granted Pe, Jose Revilla Reyes, Jr., and Deputy Sheriff
RCBMI's motion for the issuance of a writ of Rommel Ignacio as the respondents. The
execution, and ordered the PARAD to execute events span from a loan transaction that took
the ruling without further delay. place in 2001, where the respondents lent
RATIO: P50,000,000.00 to Dante Tan, facilitated by
The Supreme Court held that the CA Pentacapital and secured by shares in Best
improperly dismissed RCBMI's petition on the World Resources Corporation (BWRC). Upon
grounds of non-exhaustion of administrative failure to repay the loan, Dante attempted to
remedies, asserting that circumstances settle through selling these shares, but
warranted exceptions to this principle, disappeared before executing the necessary
particularly the unreasonable delay in deeds. Subsequently, the respondents filed a
executing the MAR order which had been final collection case against Dante in the Regional
and executory for years. The Court noted that Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, which
such delays, which extended for 37 years in culminated in a judgment ordering Dante to
this case, would irretrievably prejudice pay P100,100,000.00. The court also issued a
RCBMI, thus justifying direct judicial writ of execution, leading to the sheriff levying
intervention. Moreover, the finality of rulings on Dante's property, followed by an auction
concerning RCBMI's possession rights was sale held on March 29, 2005. Teresita, Dante's
clear, and the legal context dictated that the wife, later filed a nullification case in the RTC
writ of execution should issue as a matter of of Parañaque City against the respondents
right following the established timelines under and the sheriff, asserting that the property was
the applicable rules. The PARAD's failure to conjugal and should not have been used to
comply with this expectation due to satisfy Dante's personal obligations. Initially,
unnecessary complications and delays her case was dismissed due to res judicata,

7 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

but was later reversed, resulting in a evaluations of its decisions as null and void.
declaration that the auction sale was void. The allowance of the late appeal was justified
Respondents subsequently filed a notice of as a procedural remedy to prevent an unjust
appeal which was deemed late and outcome that would allow Dante to further
subsequently denied by the Parañaque RTC, evade his financial obligations and ensure
leading them to apply for certiorari with the justice was served.
Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled in favor of
the respondents, directing the Parañaque RTC DOCTRINE:
to allow the late appeal, asserting that denying The doctrine of judicial stability underscores
appeal based on technicality was the principle that courts of equal authority
inappropriate. should not interfere with each other's
judgments or orders. Each court possesses
ISSUES exclusive jurisdiction over cases it
adjudicates, barred from second-guessing the
1. Did the Parañaque RTC violate the jurisdictional calls or judgments of another
doctrine of judicial stability when it court within the same hierarchal level. This
entertained Teresita's nullification principle serves to maintain order and
case and ultimately declared the minimize confusion in the administration of
auction sale and related documents justice, ensuring that judgments made by one
null and void? court are upheld without undue interference
2. Was the CA correct in allowing the from another.
respondents' notice of appeal despite
it being filed late?
Vda. de Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank of
RULING: Canaman, Inc., GR No. 176260, 24
The Supreme Court ruled against the
November 2010
petitioner, affirming the CA's decision to allow
the respondents' appeal despite its lateness. FACTS:
It concluded that the Parañaque RTC violated The case of Lucia Barrameda Vda. de
the doctrine of judicial stability when it Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank of Canaman, Inc.,
entertained the nullification case, thus represented by its liquidator, the Philippine
nullifying its earlier orders and proceedings. Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC),
revolves around a petition for review on
RATIO: certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
The Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of Civil Procedure, concerning the modification
judicial stability, which emphasizes non- of a lower court's decision. On March 17,
interference by one court with the judgments 2000, Lucia filed a complaint before the
of a co-equal court. It reiterated that courts of Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 36
concurrent jurisdiction cannot encroach upon (RTC-Iriga) against her children (Roy, Rito,
the authority of one another, particularly Amy, Arabel, Rico, Abe, Ponce Rex, and Adden)
regarding judgments issued in cases they had and the Rural Bank of Canaman. She sought
previously adjudicated. In this instance, since
annulment of a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition,
the collection case was rightfully under the Deed of Mortgage, and damages, prying for a
jurisdiction of the Makati RTC, the Parañaque preliminary injunction due to the unauthorized
RTC was not authorized to question the validity execution of the deeds involving her deceased
of the execution of judgment from the Makati husband's estate. Specifically, Lucia asserted
RTC or to nullify the subsequent acts based on that her children executed a deed partition
it. By doing so, the Parañaque RTC's actions without her knowledge, allotting the property
were ultimately without jurisdiction, yielding

8 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

solely to Rico, who proceeded to mortgage 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the
Parcel B in favor of the bank. Lucia argued this Regional Trial Court of Iriga City did not
action was taken without her consent, and she have jurisdiction to continue Civil
was left without alternative housing as she Case No. IR-3128 after the Rural Bank
occupied Parcel B. of Canaman was placed under
receivership.
In response, the bank contended that Lucia
had sold one parcel to Rico in 1979, thus 2. The Court upheld the Court of Appeals'
representing her share in the estate, and the decision to consolidate Civil Case No.
partition and mortgage occurred with her IR-3128 with the liquidation case
knowledge, though she did not sign the before the Regional Trial Court of
document. The bank also highlighted the Makati City.
foreclosure process of Parcel B, which
reportedly occurred due to unpaid debts. The RATIO:
case saw several developments, including a The Court supported its ruling by stating that
transition of legal representation due to the jurisdiction over the case is determined by the
bank's receivership by the PDIC in January nature of the subject matter rather than the
2001. On May 9, 2003, the bank, represented time of filing. When the Rural Bank of
by PDIC, filed a motion to dismiss on Canaman was placed under the PDIC's
jurisdictional grounds, asserting that the RTC- receivership, all claims against the bank were
Iriga lacked the authority to hear the case as required to be filed with the designated
liquidation court. The Supreme Court stressed
the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the
liquidation court in Makati City as stipulated the need for a unified approach in handling
under Republic Act No. 7653 (the New Central claims against an insolvent bank to promote
Bank Act). On July 29, 2003, RTC-Iriga granted efficiency and protect the interests of all
the motion to dismiss, prompting Lucia's creditors, as administered through the PDIC to
appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA prevent multiple litigations affecting the
modified the lower court's decision on August liquidation process.
15, 2006, ordering the consolidation of Lucia’s DOCTRINE:
case with the liquidation proceedings pending The Supreme Court's decision reiterated the
in Makati City, prompting Lucia to file a motion doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction but noted
for reconsideration, which was denied, its exceptions. The consolidation of claims in
leading to the current petition for review. a liquidation scenario is deemed necessary to
ISSUE: ensure due process, orderliness, and fairness
in resolving disputes involving insolvent
1. Did the Regional Trial Court of Iriga banks. The Court highlighted that Section 30 of
City, Branch 36, have jurisdiction over the New Central Bank Act gives exclusive
Civil Case No. IR-3128 after the Rural jurisdiction to the liquidation court for all
Bank of Canaman was placed under claims against the bank and emphasized that
receivership? allowing separate actions against the bank
would undermine the very purpose of
2. Was the Court of Appeals correct in liquidations, potentially resulting in unfair
ordering the consolidation of Civil advantages to certain creditors at the expense
Case No. IR-3128 with the liquidation of others. Furthermore, it was reiterated that
case before the Regional Trial Court of actions taken post-receivership, regardless of
Makati City? previous jurisdiction claims, need to be
RULING: channeled through the established liquidation
process.

9 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

Cang vs. CA, GR No. 105368, 25 September 3. Was the petition for adoption properly
1998 substantiated in terms of legal
requirements and best interest of the
FACTS: children?
The case involves Herbert Cang (Petitioner)
versus the Court of Appeals and Spouses RULING:
Ronald V. Clavano and Maria Clara Clavano The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Herbert
(Respondents). The events leading to the case Cang, granting his petition for review and
took place primarily in Cebu City, involving a setting aside the decisions of the lower courts.
petition for adoption regarding three minor The Supreme Court determined that Herbert
children, Keith, Charmaine, and Joseph did not abandon his children and that the
Anthony, all surnamed Cang. Herbert Cang adoption proceedings were invalid due to the
and Anna Marie Clavano married on January lack of his consent as a natural parent.
27, 1973, and had three children during their
marriage. However, the marriage deteriorated RATIO:
when Anna Marie discovered Herbert's alleged The Court's reasoning emphasized the legal
extramarital affairs, prompting her to seek principle that parental consent is essential for
legal separation. The Juvenile and Domestic adoption, unless the natural parent has
Relations Court of Cebu granted their abandoned their child. The definition of
separation and mandated Herbert to provide a abandonment requires a clear display of a
monthly support of ₱1,000 for his children. settled intention to forsake parental duties.
The Court found that Herbert, despite living in
Herbert moved to the United States, divorced
the United States, maintained consistent
Anna Marie, and remarried.
communication and financial support for his
In 1987, Ronald V. Clavano and Maria Clara children through remittances and bank
Clavano filed a petition for the adoption of the deposits, which demonstrated his care and
minors. Both Keith and Anna Marie consented intent to fulfill his parental duties. The lower
to the adoption, with Anna Marie justifying it by courts had misapprehended the concept of
stating Herbert had abandoned his children. abandonment, focusing solely on Herbert's
Upon learning of the petition for adoption, physical absence rather than the emotional
Herbert returned to the Philippines and ties and support he provided for his children.
opposed it, arguing he had not abandoned his
parental rights. The Regional Trial Court of The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts
Cebu issued a decree of adoption on March for placing undue weight on the financial
27, 1990, leading Herbert to appeal to the affluence of the prospective adoptive parents
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the over Herbert's emotional and psychological
adoption. connections with his children. The judgment
underscored that the welfare of the child must
ISSUE: be the paramount consideration, but this does
not permit the automatic displacement of a
1. Can minor children be adopted natural parent's authority in favor of those who
without the written consent of their are financially better off.
natural parent due to the claimed
abandonment by that parent? DOCTRINE:
2. Did Herbert Cang abandon his The decision reinforced the doctrine that a
parental responsibilities to warrant the parent’s rights over their children cannot be
dispensation of his consent for unilaterally overridden without compelling
adoption? evidence of abandonment or other
disqualifying factors. Consent from the

10 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

natural parent is essential under Philippine 1. Is the decision of President Rodrigo
law for adoption unless abandonment is Duterte to allow the burial of former
adequately proven, which the Court found had President Ferdinand Marcos at the
not occurred in this case. The ruling Libingan ng mga Bayani a justiciable
established the principle that emotional controversy or a political question
bonds and parental responsibilities go beyond beyond judicial review?
mere financial support and that a holistic view
of a parent’s role is necessary in adjudicating 2. Do the petitioners have locus standi to
matters of custody and adoption. maintain their petitions?
3. Have petitioners violated the
doctrines of exhaustion of
Ocampo vs. Enriquez, GR No. 225973, 8 administrative remedies and hierarchy
November 2016 of courts by filing petitions directly
with the Supreme Court?
FACTS:
The case G.R. No. 225973, resolved on 4. Did the Secretary of National Defense
November 8, 2016, concerns the legality of the and the AFP Chief of Staff commit
interment of former President Ferdinand E. grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Marcos (Marcos) at the Libingan ng mga lack or excess of jurisdiction when
Bayani (LNMB). The petitions were filed by they issued memoranda and directives
various human rights victims, advocacy for Marcos’s interment at LNMB?
groups, legislators, members of the Bar, and
concerned citizens who opposed the burial of 5. Does the interment of Marcos at LNMB
Marcos in the LNMB, arguing it violates violate constitutional provisions,
constitutional provisions, statutory laws such critical domestic laws such as RA 289,
RA 10368, AFP regulations, and
as Republic Act No. 289, Republic Act No.
10368, other laws, AFP Regulations, and international human rights laws?
international human rights obligations. During 6. Do historical facts, laws on ill-gotten
his 2016 presidential campaign, then wealth, and Supreme Court
candidate Rodrigo R. Duterte promised to pronouncements nullify Marcos’s right
allow Marcos's burial at LNMB. Upon election, to be interred at LNMB?
he directed the Department of National
Defense (DND) and the Armed Forces of the 7. Did the Marcos family waive their right
Philippines (AFP) to prepare for the burial. This to burial at LNMB by prior agreement
led to petitions challenging the President’s with the government?
verbal order, DND’s memorandum, and AFP’s RULING:
implementation directive. The petitioners The Supreme Court, by majority, dismissed
include Saturnino C. Ocampo, Edcel C. the petitions and upheld the legality of
Lagman and others representing victims of Marcos's burial at the LNMB. It held that:
human rights violations during Marcos’s
regime. The respondents are Rear Admiral 1. The issue is a political question
Ernesto C. Enriquez, General Ricardo R. involving Presidential discretion and
Visaya, Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, the heirs promises and is not subject to judicial
of Marcos, and others. The Supreme Court review absent grave abuse of
issued a Status Quo Ante Order against the discretion.
burial pending resolution of the petitions.
2. Petitioners, except perhaps some
ISSUE: human rights victims, generally lacked

11 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

 legal standing, while issues involving land set aside as a military and national
lawmakers' prerogatives were not shrine. The decision related to a political
demonstrated. question tied to an election campaign promise
aimed at national healing and reconciliation,
3. Petitioners failed to exhaust beyond judicial interference so long as there
administrative remedies and proper was no grave abuse of discretion. The
judicial hierarchy; however, the Court petitioners lacked direct legal injury or
still proceeded to decide on merit. standing, many challenging it as concerned
4. There was no grave abuse in the citizens or legislators without personal stake.
operation of the official acts by the The Court also found that pertinent laws such
Secretary of National Defense and AFP as RA 289 establishing a National Pantheon
Chief of Staff, who acted under the were not implemented or did not apply to the
President’s direction. LNMB site, which was reserved earlier by
different proclamations and executive orders.
5. Marcos’s remains are qualified for The Administrative Code permitting the
burial according to AFP Regulations as President to reserve lands for public purpose
he was a former President, Medal of was invoked, but no law or proclamation
Valor awardee, veteran, and former altered the LNMB’s purpose. The Director of
military personnel; no law or executive National Defense and AFP Chief of Staff rightly
issuance explicitly barred the implemented the President’s directive without
interment. excess or lack of jurisdiction. The Court
6. The provisions invoked by petitioners emphasized the presumption of regularity and
like RA 289 (establishing a National absence of judicial basis to question the
Pantheon) did not apply or were not yet President’s political discretion. International
implemented; political considerations law obligations recognizing victims’ rights to
of reconciliation and national healing reparation and remedy were found not to be
warranted the burial. directly impacted by the burial or standing in
law to prohibit interment. Prior political
7. The prior 1992 agreement with the agreements with the Marcos family were
Marcos family was a political voluntary and could be overridden. Thus,
arrangement and incumbent judicial intervention was denied as
President could override or modify constitutionally improper.
such arrangements.
DOCTRINE:
Dissenting opinions argued against burial at
LNMB, emphasizing Marcos’s status as a 1. Political Question Doctrine and
dictator responsible for plunder and human Expanded Judicial Review: Under the
rights abuses, violation of laws like RA 10368 1987 Constitution, while the
recognizing victims, and illegality of burial in a Judiciary’s power is expanded to
shrine for heroes. They criticized the dismissal determine grave abuse of discretion by
of petitions for lack of justiciability and locus government branches, political
standi and underscored the constitutional questions involving policy or
duty to protect victims and uphold the rule of discretion of executive and legislative
law. branches remain principally non-
justiciable absent clear constitutional
RATIO: violation or grave abuse. The Court’s
The majority reasoned that the President role is limited to determining whether
conceivably has discretion to order burial of a such abuse exists.
former President and soldier at LNMB, a public

12 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

 2. Locus Standi: A petitioner must show Burials honoring perpetrators
a direct and personal interest or injury; undermine this policy.
general grievances as citizens or
taxpayers require exceptional 9. Equal Protection: Classifications
circumstances such as infringement affecting rights or privileges must rest
of constitutional rights or public trust. on substantial distinctions germane to
the law’s purpose.
3. Exhaustion of Remedies and Hierarchy
of Courts: Judicial review requires 10. Public Purpose Standard: Public funds
exhaustion of administrative remedies and property shall be disbursed solely
and observance of judicial hierarchy for legitimate public purposes, not
except in cases of constitutional private or partisan interests.
importance or urgency. Hence, the burials and related official acts
4. Faithful Execution Clause: The must be assessed within these legal
President must faithfully execute laws frameworks. Respect for the decision of co-
but is not above the Constitution or equal branches involving policy must be
statutes, and must act within legal balanced with the protection of human rights,
bounds, failing which constitutes legislature’s role, and the sacredness of
grave abuse. national shrines.

5. Legislative Mandates and Executive

Orders Govern Public Property: The Roldan vs. Sps. Barrios, GR No. 214803, 23
use and reservation of public lands April 2018
like the LNMB must conform to
existing laws, proclamations, and FACTS:
official purposes. Administrative This case involves a petition for certiorari filed
regulations cannot override statutes or by Alona G. Roldan (petitioner) against the
constitutional principles. Spouses Clarence I. Barrios and Anna Lee T.
Barrios, Rommel Matorres, and Hon. Jemena
6. Holistic Interpretation of Laws: Abellar Arbis, in her capacity as Presiding
Judicial interpretation must be Judge of Branch 6, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
consistent with the spirit and Aklan. The events leading to the appeal began
objectives of the Constitution and on February 3, 2014, when Roldan filed a
related laws, reconciling all applicable foreclosure action against the Barrios couple
legislative and administrative rules. and Matorres, which was docketed as Civil
7. International Law as Part of Domestic Case No. 9811. Roldan claimed that on
Law: Philippines’ ratified treaties and October 13, 2008, the Barrios couple
customary international law, including borrowed PHP 250,000.00 from her, secured
ICCPR and CAT, impose obligations to by a real estate mortgage over a property
respect human rights, provide described as Lot 5891-A-4 situated in Baybay,
effective remedies, reparations, and Makato, Aklan, with a mortgage condition that
prevent impunity. required repayment within one year. The loan
became overdue, and despite repeated
8. Symbolic Reparation and Memory: demands since February 2011, the Barrios did
States have obligations to provide not pay back the borrowed sum. Roldan
victims reparations including symbolic alleged that the Barrios had subsequently
measures recognizing their suffering, mortgaged the same property to Matorres for
promoting truth and non-repetition. PHP 150,000.00 on June 11, 2012.

13 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

Upon filing the foreclosure case, the Barrios DOCTRINE:
filed an answer asserting inaccuracies in the The Supreme Court reiterated that under
debt calculation and claimed that they were Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by
undergoing rehabilitation proceedings under Republic Act No. 7691, the jurisdiction of the
another case. Matorres admitted the RTC is limited to civil actions where the
existence of his mortgage on the property but subject matter is incapable of pecuniary
asserted that Roldan's claim against him estimation or involves real property titles
lacked basis. The RTC subsequently issued an exceeding PHP 20,000.00. The Court
order on July 22, 2014, dismissing both the explained that while foreclosure actions might
Barrios and Roldan’s complaints for lack of ordinarily be seen as incapable of pecuniary
jurisdiction since the assessed value of the estimation, they still fall within the
mortgaged property did not exceed PHP jurisdictional limits defined by assessed
20,000.00. Roldan's motion for property values when dealing with title or
reconsideration was denied on August 18, possession issues. The decision also
2014, which led her to file the current petition emphasized the importance of adhering to the
for certiorari, claiming that the RTC had gravely established judicial hierarchy and procedures,
abused its discretion by dismissing her validating the RTC's ruling as consistent with
foreclosure case. the legal framework governing jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion
Foronda-Crystal vs. Son, GR No. 221815, 29
in dismissing the foreclosure cases for lack of
November 2017
jurisdiction?
RULING: FACTS:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for The case involves Glynna Foronda-Crystal as
certiorari, ruling that there was no grave abuse the Petitioner and Aniana Lawas Son as the
of discretion on the part of the RTC in Respondent. The events transpired in Cebu,
dismissing the foreclosure action for lack of specifically in the municipality of Compostela,
jurisdiction. where Eddie Foronda, the registered owner of
a parcel of land, passed on ownership to his
RATIO: daughter, the Petitioner. The property in
The Court asserted that the RTC’s question was acquired by Foronda through a
determination of lack of jurisdiction was Free Patent (Free Patent No. VII-519533), with
appropriate based on the assessed value of the title recorded as Original Certificate of Title
the mortgaged property, which was PHP (OCT) No. OP-37324. The land was described
13,380.00, falling below the PHP 20,000.00 in the title by specifications that outlined its
threshold that outlines the jurisdiction of first- boundaries.
level courts. The jurisdiction of a court over the
subject matter is determined by the nature of On March 15, 1999, the Respondent
the action and the relief sought, which, in this commenced a legal action for reconveyance
case, constituted a real action pertaining to a and damages against the Petitioner, claiming
foreclosure process directly tied to the lawful ownership and possession of the lot for
property in question. It followed legal over twelve years. The Respondent asserted
precedent that specified that real estate that she purchased the property from a certain
mortgage cases must be evaluated based on Eleno T. Arias on August 4, 1986 for P200,000.
assessed values for jurisdictional purposes. Additionally, she insisted that real property
taxes had been duly paid under her name,
evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 16408A. The

14 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

Respondent contended the issuance of the Court stressed that jurisdiction must be
Free Patent to Eddie Foronda was erroneous, defined by the law and not by the perception of
alleging that he was never the actual owner as the district court or any party involved.
he had no tax declaration in his name.
RATIO:
The Petitioner countered with a motion to In determining jurisdiction, the Court
dismiss the case on multiple grounds, emphasized that the subject matter
including lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, jurisdiction of the RTC depends on the
prescription of action, and lack of cause of assessed value of the property involved, as
action. Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) delineated in the Judiciary Reorganization Act
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction due of 1980, as amended. The law states that RTCs
to the assessed value of the property being have exclusive jurisdiction over cases with
P2,830. However, upon reconsideration properties having an assessed value
requested by the Respondent, the RTC exceeding P20,000. In the present case, both
reversed its earlier decision and allowed trial parties failed to mention the assessed value in
to proceed. the complaint, raising questions about the
court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court
On November 24, 2006, the RTC ruled in favor underscored that the absence of any
of the Respondent, ordering the cancellation allegation of the assessed value essentially
of OCT No. OP-37324 and the issuance of a meant that the RTC could not assume
new title to her. This prompted the Petitioner to jurisdiction over the case, leading to the case
appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), listing
being null and void.
several grievances regarding the hastiness of
the RTC’s decision, evidentiary issues about The Court also clarified its view on the nature
ownership, and the alleged jurisdictional of the assessed value versus the market value,
overreach of the RTC. Ultimately, the CA reiterating that only the assessed value should
upheld the RTC's decision on March 12, 2015, be considered when determining jurisdiction.
which was reiterated in a subsequent This was essential in the present case where
resolution on October 19, 2015. This set the the alleged property assessed value was
stage for the Petitioner to file a petition for stated to be merely P2,826.00 rather than the
review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging market value asserted to be P200,000.00.
the decisions of the CA and RTC. Given this clear delineation, the Petitioner was
justified in asserting that the MTC, not the RTC,
ISSUE: had jurisdiction. Therefore, the RTC's
1. Did the RTC validly acquire jurisdiction decisions were annulled, and the case was
over the case, and was the RTC's directed for further proceedings in the
decision void ab initio? appropriate court.

2. Should the Original Certificate of Title DOCTRINE:

in the Petitioner’s father’s name be The case reaffirms the principle that
canceled based on the Respondent’s jurisdiction is a foundational aspect of any
claims of ownership? court's power to adjudicate. Jurisdiction
primarily depends upon the assessed value of
3. Is the action barred by prescription? the real property involved in a case. Failure to
RULING: properly allege the assessed value in the
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the complaint results in a lack of jurisdiction,
Petitioner, declaring that the RTC did not which cannot be corrected or assumed.
validly acquire jurisdiction over the case, Jurisdiction cannot be assumed by any court
rendering its decisions null and void. The regardless of the nature of the claims made,

15 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

and a judgment rendered without jurisdiction the case constituted unlawful detainer and
is fundamentally void. thus fell under the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC). The CA upheld the RTC's
ruling, reasoning that the jurisdiction was
Sps. Erorita vs. Sps. Dumlao, GR No. selected correctly based on the allegations of
195477, 25 January 2016 the complaint associated with the property’s
assessed value exceeding the set thresholds
FACTS: under Republic Act No. 7691. The CA deemed
The case revolves around the dispute between the case as one for possession rather than
the Spouses Herminio E. Erorita and Editha C. unlawful detainer.
Erorita (the petitioners) and the Spouses
Ligaya Dumlao and Antonio Dumlao (the ISSUE:
respondents). The respondents are the 1. Did the RTC have jurisdiction over the
registered owners of a parcel of land in case?
Barangay San Mariano, Roxas, Oriental 2. Were Hernan and Susan improperly
Mindoro, covered by Transfer Certificate of impleaded as parties in the case?
Title No. T-53000. They acquired the property
at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale on April 25, RULING:
1990, after the former owners, the Eroritas, The Supreme Court partly granted the petition
failed to redeem it. The Dumlaos permitted the of Spouses Herminio and Editha Erorita. It
Eroritas to continue operating the San Mariano ruled that the MTC had jurisdiction over the
Academy on the property, where the case, and the issue regarding Hernan and
structures are located. They purportedly Susan being improperly impleaded could not
agreed upon a monthly rental of Twenty be considered since it was not raised before
Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00), which the the lower courts.
Eroritas allegedly did not pay since 1990. The
Eroritas contend that their agreement was RATIO:
born out of goodwill rather than formal The Supreme Court reasoned that the
tenancy. On December 16, 2002, the Dumlaos jurisdiction of a court is primarily determined
asked the petitioners to vacate the property. by the allegations presented within the
Although the Spouses Erorita expressed a complaint. It stated that jurisdiction must not
desire to comply, they claimed immediate be affected by the complaint's label or by the
closure of the school was hindered by the defenses raised in subsequent answers. To
qualify as an unlawful detainer case, the
need for clearance from the Department of
Education, Culture, and Sports. Subsequently, complaint should indicate that the defendant
on March 4, 2004, the Dumlaos filed a initially had lawful possession and failed to
complaint for recovery of possession against vacate after appropriate demand by the
the Eroritas and their appointed plaintiff within one year. The Court analyzed
administrators, Hernan and Susan Erorita, the complaint filed by the Dumlaos and
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The asserted that it contained essential elements
defendants, upon being summoned, did not indicating it was indeed a case for unlawful
appear, resulting in a default judgment where detainer, thereby placing it under the exclusive
the RTC ruled in favor of the Dumlaos on June jurisdiction of the MTC, regardless of the
4, 2007. The RTC ordered the Spouses Erorita assessed value of the property. Given that the
to vacate the property, pay accumulated RTC lacked jurisdiction based on the
rentals, and barred them from enrolling allegations, the decision it rendered was void.
students at the academy. The Eroritas
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing

16 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

DOCTRINE: lacked jurisdiction due to the value of the
The ruling established that jurisdiction over property being below PhP 20,000. Bautista
subject matter is a critical element that can be passed away, and his heirs continued the suit.
evaluated at any stage of a legal proceeding, A compromise agreement was reached with
including on appeal. The Supreme Court only some respondents, which the RTC
maintained that if the allegations in a approved in 2011. However, other
complaint demonstrate essential elements of respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss in 2013
unlawful detainer, the MTC retains exclusive claiming the complaint did not state a value
jurisdiction over such cases, as categorized for the property sufficient to establish
under RA 7691. Furthermore, the principle of jurisdiction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
estoppel by laches does not apply if the The RTC ultimately dismissed the complaint,
jurisdiction was contested in a timely manner. ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to the failure of
Thus, the failure to assert jurisdiction during the petitioners to assert the appropriate value
initial stages does not impede one's right to of the property exceeding the jurisdictional
raise it on appeal. The Court fortified the ceiling of PhP 20,000.
notion that jurisdictional challenges can be
made at any time, contradicting previous ISSUE:
findings which misapplied earlier rulings. Did the RTC err in dismissing the case for lack
of jurisdiction based on the assertion that the
action was a real action with a value below the
threshold necessary for RTC jurisdiction?
Heirs of Alfredo Bautista vs. Lindo, GR No.
208232, 10 March 2024 RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
FACTS: petitioners, holding that the RTC erred in
The case revolves around the surviving heirs of dismissing the case based on jurisdictional
Alfredo R. Bautista, specifically Epifania G. grounds. The Court determined that the action
Bautista and Zoey G. Bautista, as petitioners, for repurchase was not merely a real action
against multiple respondents including but rather an action incapable of pecuniary
Francisco Lindo and Welhilmina Lindo, and estimation.
several heirs of Filipina Daquigan. Bautista
inherited a piece of land located in Poblacion, RATIO:
Lupon, Davao Oriental in 1983, which was The Supreme Court's decision emphasized
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. that jurisdiction is determined by the
(1572) P-6144. In 1991, he subdivided this land allegations in the complaint and the nature of
and sold it to various vendees, including the the relief sought. The Court affirmed that the
respondents, via a notarized deed of absolute action taken by the petitioners was to enforce
sale. Shortly thereafter, the original title was their right to repurchase under the provisions
canceled, and new Transfer Certificates of of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which is
Title (TCTs) were issued in favor of the vendees. treated as a right equivalent to specific
In 1994, Bautista filed a complaint for performance. Thus, it concluded that the
repurchase against the respondents based on complaint was incapable of pecuniary
Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, estimation. Jurisdictional matters must be
known as the Public Land Act, which allows for established based on the nature of the action
the repurchase of land acquired under free rather than solely on the value of property
patent within five years of the conveyance. The involved, which in this case, was secondary to
respondents, in their answer, asserted the right being enforced.
defenses including lack of cause of action,
estoppel, laches, and the claim that the court

17 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

Moreover, the Court noted that even if treated Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor
as a real action, the respondents had actively of the petitioners on May 30, 2005, ordering
participated in the RTC proceedings, Patricia, Inc. to cease eviction efforts and
effectively estopping themselves from later declaring that the property belonged to the
contesting the jurisdiction of the court. City of Manila. However, upon appeal, the
Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the
DOCTRINE: petitioners' complaint on June 25, 2010,
The Court reiterated the doctrine that the asserting that they lacked the requisite
value of the property does not solely interest to maintain a suit for quieting of title
determine jurisdiction when the right to and criticizing the RTC's adoption of the
repurchase arises from a legal principle commissioners' report as insufficient without
incorporated within the deed of sale. an evidentiary hearing. The CA's dismissal
Jurisdiction over the complaint for repurchase emphasized a failure of the petitioners to
is vested in the RTC because such actions establish the assessed value of the property,
invoke rights that cannot be easily quantified which is crucial for determining jurisdiction,
in monetary terms. The involvement of the alongside addressing the procedural
respondents in the case further established misjoinder of actions in the complaint.
that they were barred from contesting
jurisdiction under the principle of estoppel ISSUE:
due to their previous participation in the
proceedings. Hence, the enforcement of 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in
dismissing the petitioners' complaint
statutory rights is inherently a matter that falls
under the jurisdiction of the RTC, irrespective for lack of jurisdiction due to the
of the assessed value of the property involved. absence of an assessed value of the
property?
2. Were the petitioners rightful in joining
their claims for injunction and quieting
Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc., GR No. 195834, 9 of title in a single complaint?
November 2016 3. Did the petitioners present sufficient
FACTS: evidence of interest in the property to
maintain their action for quiet title and
The case involves several petitioners including injunction?
Guillermo Salvador, Remedios Castro,
represented by Paz "Chit" Castro, and various RULING:
others against Patricia, Inc., with the City of The Court upheld the CA’s ruling, confirming
Manila and Ciriaco C. Mijares as intervenors- that jurisdiction over a real action is
appellees. The case arose from a contentious contingent upon the assessed value of the
dispute regarding the ownership and property. The absence of an averment of such
possession of a property located along Juan value in the petitioners' complaint led to the
Luna Street in Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila. This dismissal of the action.
dispute led the petitioners to file a civil The Court also affirmed the CA's finding that
complaint in 1996, seeking an injunction to
the joinder of the action for injunction with the
prevent Patricia, Inc. from evicting them from action for quieting of title was improper under
their dwellings, along with a plea for quiet title the Rules of Court.
over the said property. As the proceedings
unfolded, the petitioners argued that they had It further held that the petitioners did not
been in peaceful possession of the property demonstrate the necessary legal or equitable
for over thirty years, asserting ownership title to the property, thereby justifying the
based on their improvements made there. The

18 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

dismissal of their action for quieting of title Sps. Sanchez vs. Vda. De Aguilar, GR No.
and injunction. 228680, 17 September 2018
RATIO: FACTS:
The Supreme Court contextualized The case revolves around a petition for review
jurisdiction by asserting that it hinges on the on certiorari filed by spouses Francisco and
allegations made in the complaint. Delma Sanchez (Petitioners) against Esther
Jurisdiction over real actions, such as quieting Divinagracia Vda. de Aguilar, Teresita Aguilar,
of title, necessitates compliance with specific Zenaida Aguilar, Juanito Aguilar, Jr., Amalia
statutory requirements including a clear Aguilar, and Susan Aguilar (Respondents),
statement of the assessed value of the along with the Municipality of Lake Sebu and
property involved. In this case, the outright several officials, seeking to reverse decisions
omission of the assessed value rendered the made by the Court of Appeals and the
court unable to ascertain its jurisdiction, Regional Trial Court related to ownership of a
leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The land parcel in South Cotabato. On July 11,
Court further delineated the necessary 2000, Juanito Aguilar sold a 600-square-meter
requirements for an action to quiet title, portion of a larger 33,600-square meter lot to
emphasizing that plaintiffs must hold legal or the spouses. The heirs of Juanito Aguilar
equitable title to the real property in question, claimed possession over an alleged alluvial
and in this instance, the petitioners failed to land that borders this 600-square-meter lot,
claim such title. Additionally, the misjoinder of which the spouses contested. The Municipal
the action for injunction alongside a special Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) dismissed their
civil action like quieting of title was deemed complaint for forcible entry on June 7, 2006,
inappropriate, as prescribed by the Rules of ruling that the spouses failed to prove they
Court, which states that such actions must be held prior possession of the land. The MCTC
pursued separately to maintain procedural determined that the heirs possessed the land
integrity. Thus, the Court determined that even based on prior improvements and that the
if jurisdiction had been present initially, the land in question was not an alluvium but
lack of adequate legal standing and failure to public land adjacent to Lake Sebu. In 2013, the
adhere to procedural requirements justified Regional Trial Court annulled the 2006 MCTC
the Court of Appeals' dismissal. ruling, reasoning that the measurement of
land confirmed that the spouses had rightful
DOCTRINE: ownership down to the edge of the lake.
This case establishes the judicial precedent However, this ruling was overturned by the
that the jurisdiction over real actions is Court of Appeals on July 28, 2016, citing lack
conditioned upon the specificity and of jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
sufficiency of the allegations within the spouses’ delay as constituting laches.
complaint, particularly regarding the assessed
value of the property in question. Moreover, it ISSUE:
affirms the principle that misjoinder of actions
governed by different rules can be grounds for 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling
dismissal, emphasizing the need for clarity that the Regional Trial Court lacked
and compliance with procedural standards in jurisdiction over the subject matter of
litigation involving property disputes. the case?
2. Was the complaint filed by the
spouses barred by laches?
3. Did the MCTC have jurisdiction over
the forcible entry complaint filed by
the spouses?

19 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

RULING: FACTS:
The Supreme Court ruled to affirm the In the case of Chester De Joya v. Judge Placido
decisions of the Court of Appeals dated July C. Marquez, et al. (G.R. No. 162416, January
28, 2016, and the Resolution dated October 31, 2006), petitioner Chester De Joya sought a
10, 2016, which reversed the Regional Trial petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify
Court’s annulment of the MCTC's decision. and set aside a warrant of arrest issued by
respondent Judge Placido C. Marquez,
RATIO: presiding judge of Branch 40 of the Regional
The Court emphasized that the MCTC Trial Court (RTC) in Manila. The warrant
possessed both personal and subject matter stemmed from Criminal Case No. 03-219952,
jurisdiction over the case, as the Spouses involving charges against petitioner and co-
Sanchez had initiated their forcible entry accused for violation of Article 315, paragraph
complaint there. The Court highlighted that 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and
jurisdiction over the subject matter is Presidential Decree No. 1689, related to
determined by law, and in this case, syndicated estafa. The case originated from a
applicable laws, such as Republic Act No. complaint filed by Manuel Dy Awiten, who
7691, grant MCTCs exclusive original alleged that he was induced by accused Ma.
jurisdiction over ejectment cases. The ruling Gracia Tan Hao to invest over one hundred
further clarified that the Spouses did indeed million pesos in State Resources
raise the issue of alluvium, which was Development Management Corporation.
intertwined with the question of possession, When the investments matured, checks
thereby making it appropriate for the MCTC to issued by Hao to Awiten as payment were
address this in their summary proceedings. dishonored due to insufficient funds or the
DOCTRINE: closure of the account. Investigation by the
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
surrounding annulment of judgments, supported the complaint's allegations.
asserting that it is an extraordinary remedy, Several supporting documents were
entitled to be granted only under exceptional presented to justify the issuance of the
circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction or warrant including affidavits, demand letters,
extrinsic fraud. The Court stressed that if a copies of checks issued, and the Articles of
court has jurisdiction over both the parties and Incorporation of the corporation naming
the subject matter, any grievances on the petitioner Chester De Joya as incorporator and
merits must be timely challenged through director. Both prosecution and defense
appropriate means like appeals. The spouses' submitted affidavits, and the State Prosecutor
four-year lapse in filing the annulment found probable cause against the accused.
complaint constituted laches, thereby anew Petitioner refused to surrender and challenged
affirming the finality of the MCTC’s decision the warrant issuance, claiming lack of
regarding possession. The ruling reinforced probable cause.
the doctrine of immutability of final
ISSUE:
judgments, underscoring the need for judicial
processes to uphold legal certainty and timely 1. Was there probable cause for the
adjudication. issuance of the warrant of arrest
against petitioner Chester De Joya?
2. Does the court have jurisdiction over
De Joya vs. Marquez, GR No. 162416, 31 petitioner when he refuses to submit
January 2006 to its jurisdiction?

20 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

RULING: Doctrine:
The Supreme Court ruled that there was The Court applied the 1987 Philippine
sufficient evidence and facts establishing Constitution as this case was decided in 2006.
probable cause to issue the warrant of arrest It upheld that probable cause for issuing a
against petitioner Chester De Joya. The warrant of arrest is that quantum of evidence
petition for certiorari and prohibition was which leads a reasonably discreet and
dismissed for lack of merit. The Court held that prudent person to believe that an offense has
petitioner is not entitled to relief as he refuses been committed by the person sought to be
to surrender and submit to the court's arrested. The determination of probable cause
jurisdiction. is less stringent than the proof required at trial
and demands only a prima facie showing. The
RATIO: judge’s role at this stage is to evaluate
The Court explained that pursuant to Section personally and within ten days the resolution
6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal of the prosecutor and supporting evidence to
Procedure, a Regional Trial Court judge must ascertain probable cause under Rule 112,
personally evaluate the resolution of the Section 6(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
prosecutor and supporting evidence within Procedure. The Court also cited the principle
ten days from the filing of the complaint to that jurisdiction over the accused is conferred
determine probable cause. Probable cause by submission to the court or by valid and
refers to facts and circumstances that would lawful issuance of processes such as arrest
lead a reasonably prudent person to believe warrants. A party challenging jurisdiction must
that a crime was committed by the accused. themselves submit or surrender to the court's
The evidence presented by the prosecution, authority first. This doctrine protects the
including the NBI report, affidavits, integrity of the judicial process and prevents
dishonored checks, demand letters, and evasion of court jurisdiction by accused
corporate documents naming petitioner as persons. The ruling reaffirmed that the Court
director, sufficiently established probable will not disturb a trial court’s finding of
cause of the crime of syndicated estafa. The probable cause absent exceptional
Court emphasized that the determination of circumstances to prevent abuse of process.
probable cause requires only a prima facie
showing, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court further elaborated that issuance of
a warrant of arrest entails assessing PLDT vs. Citi Appliance, M.C. Corp., GR No.
probability, not certainty, of guilt. The judge 21456, 9 October 2019
does not conduct a de novo hearing but FACTS:
reviews the prosecutor’s resolution and The case at hand is between the Philippine
evidence to verify substantial support. In Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as
addition, when doubt exists, the judge may the petitioner and Citi Appliance M.C.
require additional evidence, which was also Corporation (Citi Appliance) as the
satisfied in this case. The petitioner's refusal respondent (G.R. No. 214546, decided on
to surrender and submit to jurisdiction was October 9, 2019). The background of this case
also considered, and the Court reiterated that traces back to 1992, when Citi Appliance
jurisdiction over the accused is acquired acquired a parcel of land located in Cebu City,
either by voluntary submission or by issuance with the intention of constructing a 16-storey
of lawful process such as a warrant of arrest. commercial building. To adhere to zoning
Without submission or surrender, petitioner requirements, Citi Appliance needed to build
cannot invoke relief from the court. a parking area with 26 slots, which
necessitated extensive excavation. During this

21 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

excavation in 2003, they uncovered entry or the last demand to
underground telephone lines, cables, and vacate?
manholes that PLDT had installed as early as
1983, which subsequently impeded Citi 3. Is PLDT entitled to exercise its right of
Appliance's construction plans. eminent domain or claim the status of
a builder in good faith?
In April 2004, Citi Appliance formally
demanded that PLDT either remove its RULING:
installations or shoulder a required parking 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the
exemption fee of approximately P3,753,600. jurisdiction issue was not waived by
When PLDT failed to comply, Citi Appliance PLDT.
initiated a complaint for ejectment on October
1, 2004. In its answer, PLDT claimed that its 2. The Municipal Trial Court had
installations were not encroaching on Citi jurisdiction over the case as Citi
Appliance's property. Moreover, it argued that Appliance sufficiently alleged prior
the action for forcible entry was already barred physical possession. The one-year
by prescription, stating that the one-year prescriptive period was determined to
period should be counted from the date of be from the time of discovery of the
discovery of the encroachment, rather than encroachment.
the last demand made on PLDT. 3. PLDT's claims of eminent domain and
After hearing the case, the Municipal Trial being a builder in good faith were
Court in Cities ruled in favor of Citi Appliance rejected.
on December 6, 2010, ordering PLDT to either RATIO:
relocate its lines or pay rent for the property. The Supreme Court clarified that issues
This decision was appealed, but the Regional regarding jurisdiction over the subject matter
Trial Court upheld the ruling with cannot be waived and can be raised at any
modifications. PLDT’s subsequent motions for time, even for the first time on appeal. It
reconsideration were denied, leading to the differentiated between jurisdiction over the
filing of a Petition for Review with the Court of remedy and jurisdiction over the subject
Appeals, which also affirmed the lower courts' matter, concluding that the one-year
decisions. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, prescriptive period for forcible entry actions
PLDT contested the jurisdictional issue and through stealth is counted from the time the
the accounting of the prescriptive period. plaintiff discovered the encroachment, not
ISSUE: from the last demand to vacate. The Court
noted that this approach aligns with the nature
1. Was the issue of lack of jurisdiction of forcible entry actions, which are meant to
waived by PLDT? provide speedy remedies to possessory
2. Does the Municipal Trial Court hold disputes.
jurisdiction over the case? The Court critically analyzed prior possession,
Specifically: indicating that a mere claim of ownership is
• Is there a lack of prior physical insufficient in establishing prior physical
possession by Citi Appliance? possession in forcible entry cases. It
emphasized that for an ejection to succeed,
• Should the one-year the plaintiff must clearly show prior
prescriptive period for forcible possession, which was absent in PLDT's
entry be reckoned from the defense. Additionally, the arguments
time of discovery of the illegal regarding eminent domain and rights as a

22 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

builder in good faith could not be entertained execution was filed. The Surety requested time
within the context of an ejectment action, to answer but later failed to do so. The court
which is fundamentally about possession and granted the motion and issued a writ of
not ownership issues. execution. The Surety moved to quash the writ
arguing lack of summary hearing as required
DOCTRINE: by Section 17, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court,
The Supreme Court established that: but the motion was denied. The Surety
1. A party can raise jurisdictional issues appealed, raising mainly procedural errors but
at any stage of the proceedings, even did not initially question the court’s
for the first time on appeal. jurisdiction. After the Court of Appeals
affirmed the orders, the Surety filed a motion
2. The reckoning period for actions of to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
forcible entry via stealth is based on asserting that at the time the case was filed,
when the intruder’s entry is the Judiciary Act of 1948 assigned original
discovered, aligning the evidentiary exclusive jurisdiction over cases with
burden on the plaintiff to act promptly demands not exceeding ₱2,000 to inferior
once aware. courts, not the Court of First Instance. The
3. Claims of eminent domain and the Court of Appeals, finding the issue important,
status of a builder in good faith are not set aside its decision and certified the case to
valid justifications in forcible entry the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted
proceedings, as these do not address the Surety’s delay in raising the jurisdictional
the key issue of actual possession. issue and invoked the doctrine of laches,
barring the Surety from asserting lack of
jurisdiction after 15 years of participating in
the proceedings and obtaining affirmative
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, GR No. L-21450, 15
relief from the courts. The Supreme Court
April 1968
affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision
FACTS: upholding the procedure followed in issuing
The case involves plaintiffs-appellees Serafin the writ of execution, declaring that the Surety
Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog who, on July 19, had its day in court and that the lack of a
1948, filed Civil Case No. R-660 in the Court of formal summary hearing was not prejudicial
First Instance of Cebu to recover the sum of given the circumstances.
₱1,908.00 with legal interest from defendants
ISSUE:
spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia
Baguio. A writ of attachment was initially 1. Did the Court of First Instance of Cebu
issued but later dissolved upon the filing of a have jurisdiction to entertain the case
counter-bond by the defendants and Manila given the amount involved and the
Surety and Fidelity Company, Inc. (“the Judiciary Act of 1948?
Surety”). Defendants filed their answer and
counterclaim. After trial, the court rendered 2. Did the lower courts err in issuing a
judgment for the plaintiffs. Upon finality of the writ of execution against the Surety
judgment, a writ of execution was issued but without a formal summary hearing as
returned unsatisfied. Plaintiffs then moved for required by Section 17, Rule 59 of the
execution against the Surety’s counter-bond. Rules of Court?
The Surety opposed, claiming failure to 3. Is the Surety barred from contesting
prosecute and absence of a demand for the jurisdiction of the court after
payment. After a demand was made and the
Surety failed to pay, a second motion for

23 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

 participating in the case for many not formal but requires that the defendant be
years and seeking affirmative relief? notified, heard, and given opportunity to
defend. Here, the Surety was properly notified
RULING: of hearings, requested time to answer, and
1. The Court of First Instance did not have then failed to file a response, hence waiving its
jurisdiction over the case under the right to further contest. The Court also ruled
Judiciary Act of 1948, which vested that the bond securing the release of
exclusive original jurisdiction over attachment is automatically liable once the
cases not exceeding ₱2,000 to inferior principal judgment remains unsatisfied after
courts. However, the Surety’s failure to demand, with no need for a separate action or
raise this jurisdictional issue for judgment against the surety.
almost 15 years barred it from DOCTRINE:
asserting it later. The Court established that a party who
2. The issuance of the writ of execution submits its case for judicial decision and
against the Surety without a formal obtains affirmative relief from the court
summary hearing did not violate cannot later question the court’s jurisdiction
procedural due process as the Surety when faced with an unfavorable outcome. The
was notified, granted time to answer, principle of laches bars invocation of defects
and failed to respond, thus having its in jurisdiction when delayed for an
day in court. unreasonable period, especially where public
policy favors the expeditious and final
3. The Surety is barred by laches from resolution of disputes. Jurisdiction over
raising the jurisdictional issue after subject matter is exclusive and conferred by
actively participating in the case and law, but equitable considerations prevent a
seeking affirmative relief for years. party from manipulating procedural rules to
RATIO: evade adverse judgments after acquiescing to
The Supreme Court recognized that subject jurisdiction for years. The Rules of Court
matter jurisdiction is conferred by law and lack permit issuance of writs of execution against
of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. sureties on bonds upon failure to satisfy
However, the doctrine of laches, grounded on judgments, provided due notice and hearing
public policy and equity, precludes a party are accorded. Summary hearings under Rule
from remaining silent about jurisdictional 59, Section 17, do not require cumbersome
defects while actively participating in the case procedures but must ensure that parties are
and only raising the issue after an adverse given fair opportunity to be heard. The
judgment. The Surety became a quasi-party Judiciary Act of 1948 governs jurisdictional
early in the proceedings by filing a counter- questions following its effectivity, here using
bond and participated in several procedural the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the
stages, including motions for execution and controlling constitution because the decision
appeals. The Court found it inequitable and is after 1990.
unfair to annul twelve years of proceedings
based on a jurisdictional defect not timely
raised, especially as the Surety sought Province of Aklan vs. Jody King Construction
affirmative relief invoking the court's and Development Corp., GR 197592
jurisdiction repeatedly. On the issue of FACTS:
procedural due process relative to the writ of On January 12, 1998, the Province of Aklan
execution, the Court emphasized that (referred to as the petitioner) and Jody King
summary hearing under Rule 59, Section 17 is

24 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

Construction and Development Corp. petitioner to file a review on certiorari to the
(referred to as the respondent) entered into a Supreme Court.
contract to design and construct the Caticlan
Jetty Port and Terminal, Phase I, in Malay, ISSUE:
Aklan, with a total project cost of P38,900,000. 1. Whether the RTC's decision dated
This amount included P18,700,000 allocated August 14, 2009, and the writ of
for the passenger terminal and P20,200,000 execution dated November 24, 2009,
for the jetty port facility. During the were rendered void for lack of
construction process, the petitioner issued jurisdiction over the subject matter.
variation/change orders for additional works
that were mutually agreed upon. On January 5, 2. Whether the RTC gravely abused its
2001, a negotiated contract for Phase II, discretion in rendering its decision and
concerning the construction of the Passenger in issuing the writ of execution without
Terminal Building at the same location, was addressing all issues, including the
executed, costing P2,475,345.54. petitioner’s motion to discharge the
writ of preliminary attachment.
Subsequently, on October 22, 2001, the
respondent demanded a total amount of 3. Whether the issuance of the writ of
P22,419,112.96 from the petitioner for several execution violated existing regulations
purported unpaid items, including unpaid regarding government monetary
accomplishments, tax refunds, price liabilities.
escalations, and additional labor and RULING:
overhead costs due to change orders. The The Supreme Court granted the petitions in
respondent filed a case against the petitioner G.R. Nos. 197592 and 202623, reversing and
in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina setting aside the decision and resolutions of
City on July 13, 2006 (Civil Case No. 06-1122- the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the
MK), to collect these amounts. The trial court decision and writ of execution from the RTC
issued a writ of preliminary attachment on were void for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that
August 17, 2006. The petitioner denied any the Commission on Audit (COA) has primary
unpaid balances, arguing the claims were not jurisdiction over money claims against
included in an approved change order and government entities.
presented correspondence indicating
absolution of any liability. RATIO:
The Court's ruling emphasized the doctrine of
On August 14, 2009, the RTC rendered a primary jurisdiction, which posits that when a
decision in favor of the respondent, ordering case necessitates expertise unique to an
the petitioner to pay various amounts totaling administrative body, relief must first be sought
over P7.3 million for unpaid accomplishments through the appropriate administrative
on additional works, including moral and proceeding before resorting to judicial
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The remedies. The claim made by the respondent
petitioner filed for reconsideration, which the against the petitioner was categorized
trial court denied, asserting a procedural distinctly under this doctrine, as it involved a
misstep on the part of the petitioner regarding money claim against a local government unit
the motion's filing date. Following a writ of that should have been evaluated by the COA
execution issued on November 24, 2009, the under the Government Auditing Code. Given
petitioner attempted to appeal, leading to the that the jurisdiction over such claims rests
filing of petitions in the Court of Appeals (CA) exclusively with the COA, the RTC acted
under CA-G.R. SP Nos. 111754 and 114073.
The CA dismissed the petitions, prompting the

25 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

without jurisdiction when it issued its decision Heras filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 3,
and the subsequent writs of execution. 1988, but the case was delayed by a fire that
destroyed records in the Quezon City Hall on
The Court highlighted applicable legal June 11, 1988. Following reconstitution of
statutes and previous jurisprudence that records, the trial court denied Heras's motion
support the COA's exclusive authority in such on October 4, 1988. During pre-trial, the
matters. Additionally, the acknowledgment parties admitted certain facts, including the
that a judgment rendered by a court lacking existence of the Hong Kong judgment,
jurisdiction is void underpins the rationale that although Heras did not admit its authenticity.
the writ of execution resulting from such
judgment also holds no validity. The Court The trial court allowed Asiavest to present
reaffirmed the necessity for the RTC to evidence proving the Hong Kong judgment's
exercise caution when dealing with existence, while Heras provided testimonials
government monetary liabilities, underscoring disputing the legitimacy of the judgment,
that administrative procedures were instituted specifically related to the service of summons
precisely to prevent legal missteps. in Hong Kong and its jurisdiction over him. The
trial court held that the Hong Kong judgment
DOCTRINE: was valid, as Heras failed to prove his claims
In adherence to the doctrine of primary regarding the lack of jurisdiction. Asiavest was
jurisdiction, this case exemplifies the need for awarded the monetary claims requested.
jurisdictional clarity where monetary claims Heras appealed this decision to the Court of
against governmental bodies are concerned.
Appeals, which ultimately reversed the trial
This doctrine asserts that specialized matters court's ruling, citing that the service of
involving government agencies should be summons was invalid under Philippine law,
addressed first by relevant administrative and therefore the Hong Kong court lacked
authorities to ensure proper adjudication, jurisdiction over Heras. Asiavest subsequently
thus preserving the proper allocation of filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court
jurisdictional duties. Such adherence challenging the Court of Appeals' decision.
reinforces the integrity of governmental
operations while ensuring legal liability is ISSUE:
pursued under the right venue.
The central issues raised in this appeal are:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling
Asiavest Limited vs. CA, 296 SCRA 539 that Asiavest needed to present
evidence supporting the validity of the
FACTS: Hong Kong judgment?
In the case titled Asiavest Limited vs. The
Court of Appeals and Antonio Heras, G.R. No. 2. Was the service of summons on Heras
128803, decided on September 25, 1998, the defective under Philippine law?
petitioner Asiavest Limited filed a complaint
on December 3, 1987, in the Regional Trial 3. Should summons have been
Court of Quezon City against the respondent personally served on Heras in Hong
Antonio Heras. The case arose from a Hong Kong?
Kong Court judgment dated December 28, 4. Was it necessary to seek leave from
1984, which was later amended on April 13, Philippine courts to serve the foreign
1987. This judgment ordered Heras to pay summons?
Asiavest Limited various sums totaling
US$1,810,265.40, plus interest and attorney's
fees.

26 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

 5. Did the Hong Kong judgment Banco do Brasil vs. CA, 333 SCRA 545
contravene Philippine laws, principles
of sound morality, and public policy? FACTS:
In the case of Banco do Brasil vs. The Court of
RULING: Appeals, Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, and Cesar
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was S. Urbino, Sr., decided on June 16, 2000, the
denied, and it affirmed the decision of the petitioner, Banco do Brasil, challenges the
Court of Appeals, which dismissed Asiavest's rulings of the Court of Appeals, which
complaint without prejudice. reinstated the February 18, 1991 decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 8)
RATIO: that found Banco do Brasil liable to private
The Court reasoned that under Section 50, respondent Cesar Urbino Sr. for damages
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a foreign amounting to $300,000. The regional trial
judgment is deemed presumptively valid court's decision stemmed from the actions
unless the party challenging it provides involving the vessel M/V Star Ace and its
sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. The associated cargo, which were seized by
Court determined that while the Hong Kong customs authorities under the suspicion that
judgment was initially presumed valid, Heras's they were linked to a hijacking incident. This
testimonies on the non-service of summons case also had connections to another
raised reasonable doubt regarding the case, Vlason Enterprises Corporation v. Court
jurisdictional authority of the Hong Kong of Appeals and Duraproof Services, as both
courts over him. The Court emphasized that,
cases revolved around similar antecedents.
in actions in personam, jurisdiction over the
defendant must be established through The series of events began on January 7, 1989,
proper service of summons, which in this case when the M/V Star Ace, a ship under the local
was not adequately demonstrated. agency of Poro Point Shipping Services,
docked in San Fernando, La Union. The vessel
DOCTRINE: had engine troubles, and while it awaited
The Judiciary reiterated established principles permission to unload its cargo, customs
that govern the enforceability of foreign agents seized it due to suspicions of
judgments in the Philippines. It reaffirmed that smuggling, declaring it subject to forfeiture.
for a foreign judgment to be recognized, the Following damaged caused by typhoons and
foreign court must have properly acquired issues arising from the customs seizure, a
jurisdiction over the parties involved, typically salvage agreement was executed with private
through personal service of summons on respondent Duraproof Services for repair of
defendants. The ruling also stressed that the the vessel. However, the customs decision
essential characteristics of personal was contested, resulting in a series of legal
jurisdiction require that a defendant, proceedings that included multiple motions
especially a non-resident, must be personally
for default against various parties, including
served with summons in a jurisdiction that has Banco do Brasil, which claimed a lack of
legal authority over their person. Furthermore, jurisdiction and personal service of summons
the lack of such proper service undermines during trial. After a lengthy litigation process,
the foreign judgment's validity. the Regional Trial Court ruled against Banco
The Court's reliance on these legal standards do Brasil, leading to the appeal process that
serves to underscore the importance of culminated in the Court of Appeals’
adhering to procedural requirements of reinstatement of the trial court’s decision.
jurisdiction as a prerequisite to the ISSUE:
enforcement of foreign judgments.

27 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

 1. Did the Regional Trial Court validly do Brasil could not be held liable for damages
acquire jurisdiction over Banco do as the trial court lacked the necessary
Brasil in the case at hand? jurisdiction to render such a decision.
2. Was the action against Banco do Brasil Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed
considered in personam, thus the issue of finality by reiterating that the mere
requiring personal service of lapse of time does not automatically render a
summons? decision final when jurisdiction over the party
in question was not correctly acquired.
3. Was the February 18, 1991 decision of Although there were multiple parties involved
the Regional Trial Court considered in this litigation, the time frame for Banco do
final concerning Banco do Brasil? Brasil showed sufficient bases to challenge
RULING: the finality of the trial court's decision. Thus,
the petition of Banco do Brasil was granted,
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the and the previous appellate court rulings were
Regional Trial Court did not validly reversed.
acquire jurisdiction over Banco do
Brasil. DOCTRINE:
The case underscores the critical importance
2. The Court classified the action against of jurisdiction in civil actions, particularly
Banco do Brasil as in personam, concerning non-resident defendants. It
necessitating personal service of clarifies that when dealing with in personam
summons. actions against non-residents, the courts
3. The Supreme Court ruled that the must ensure valid jurisdiction through proper
February 18, 1991 decision of the service of summons. This is essential for a
Regional Trial Court had not attained valid judgment against such parties. Moreover,
finality as against Banco do Brasil. it reinforces the notion that decisions
rendered without proper jurisdiction over a
RATIO: party cannot attain finality, allowing aggrieved
The Supreme Court's decision rested on the parties to contest them within the appropriate
principle that in order to validly hold a time frame.
defendant liable in an in personam action, the
court must have jurisdiction over the person of
that defendant through proper service of Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738
summons. In this case, Banco do Brasil, being
a non-resident foreign corporation not FACTS:
engaged in business in the Philippines, The case at hand involves a petition for
required personal service or properly executed certiorari filed by petitioners Eulalia Russell,
substituted service in order for the trial court Ruperto Tautho, Francisco Tautho, Susana T.
to gain jurisdiction. The court emphasized that Reales, Apitacio Tautho, Danilo Tautho,
extraterritorial service of summons is only Juditha Pros, Gregorio Tautho, Deodita T.
appropriate under certain conditions, Judilla, Agripino Tautho, Felix Tautho, William
primarily in actions concerning the Tautho, and Marilyn Perales against
defendant's personal status or involving respondents Honorable Augustine A. Vestil
property within the Philippines. Since the and others, under G.R. No. 119347. The initial
claim against Banco do Brasil exceeded the filing took place on September 28, 1994, in the
limitations of the in rem nature of the case, the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch
publication of summons could not satisfy the 56, wherein the petitioners sought a
requirements for jurisdiction. Hence, Banco declaration of nullity and partition of a parcel

28 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

of land, specifically Lot 6149 located in Liloan, RULING:
Cebu, encompassing an area of The Supreme Court granted the petition,
approximately 56,977.40 square meters. The reversed the orders of Judge Vestil dismissing
land previously belonged to spouses the case and denying the motion for
Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho, whose reconsideration, and mandated the Regional
death led to inheritance rights accrued to both Trial Court of Mandaue City to proceed with
the petitioners and the private respondents, the case.
all of whom are their descendants. The
property remained undivided until petitioners RATIO:
discovered a public document executed on The Supreme Court established that the
June 6, 1990, titled "Declaration of Heirs and action filed by the petitioners is incapable of
Deed of Confirmation of a Previous Oral pecuniary estimation, which falls squarely
Agreement of Partition." Petitioners alleged within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
that this document was fraudulent since it Court, in accordance with Section 19(1) of
excluded them as heirs. Consequently, they Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. This was
requested the declaration of the document's determined by analyzing the nature of the
nullity and sought for the land to be partitioned principal action sought; petitioners were
among all legal heirs. pursuing the annulment of a document
contrary to what private respondents had
Private respondents subsequently filed a claimed. The Supreme Court emphasized that
Motion to Dismiss on November 24, 1994, when the principal relief sought does not
asserting that the regional trial court lacked involve a recovery of a monetary amount, but
jurisdiction, claiming that the assessed rather an assertion of legal rights, it renders
property value was only P5,000.00, which, the case cognizable exclusively by the
based on Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Regional Trial Court. Additionally, the
Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691, should distinction between actions potentially
fall under the jurisdiction of the Municipal involving re-partition and the annulment of a
Circuit Trial Court. The petitioners opposed document was highlighted. It was further
this motion, claiming that their action was not underscored that the subject matter's
strictly for the recovery of land or possession character is defined by what is alleged in the
but for the annulment of a deceptive complaint and the nature of the relief sought,
document, thus giving the Regional Trial Court regardless of its monetary value.
jurisdiction over the matter. Despite this, on
January 12, 1995, Judge Vestil dismissed the DOCTRINE:
complaint, leading petitioners to file a Motion An action that seeks to annul a document or
for Reconsideration, which was subsequently declare it null and void is inherently incapable
denied on February 13, 1995. The present of pecuniary estimation and thus falls under
petition for certiorari was then brought before the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
the Supreme Court. Court.

ISSUE:
1. Does the Regional Trial Court have Gonzales vs. GJH Land, Inc., GR 202664
jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. FACTS:
MAN-2275, concerning the annulment On August 4, 2011, petitioners Manuel Luis C.
of a document and partition of the Gonzales and Francis Martin D. Gonzales filed
property? a complaint entitled "Injunction with prayer for
Issuance of Status Quo Order, Three (3) and
Twenty (20)-Day Temporary Restraining

29 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

Orders, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with RATIO:
Damages" against respondents GJH Land, Inc. The Court explained that Branch 276 had
(formerly known as S.J. Land, Inc.), Chang correctly classified the case as an intra-
Hwan Jang, Sang Rak Kim, Mariechu N. Yap, corporate dispute, thus acknowledging the
and Atty. Roberto P. Mallari II in the Regional jurisdiction it originally held under the law.
Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. They However, the issue lay in the procedural
sought to stop the sale of shares of S.J. Land, aspect concerning the method of handling the
Inc., which they claimed to have acquired from case after its incorrect assignment to a regular
S.J. Global, Inc. on February 1, 2010, and branch rather than a designated one. The
asserted that their subscriptions were fully Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the
paid. The complaint was docketed as Civil subject matter is determined by law and is
Case No. 11-077 and assigned to Branch 276, distinct from the court's exercise of that
a court not designated as a Special jurisdiction, which is procedural in nature. The
Commercial Court. On August 9, 2011, Branch substantial issue was the wrongful raffling of
276 issued a temporary restraining order, the case to a regular branch without
followed by a writ of preliminary injunction on compromising the RTC's jurisdiction. It
August 24, 2011. After the respondents filed clarified that the petitioners' filing of the
an answer to the complaint, they complaint conferred jurisdiction on the RTC,
subsequently moved to dismiss the case for and the proper procedure would have been to
lack of jurisdiction, arguing that it involved an refer the case for reassignment rather than
intra-corporate dispute, which should be dismiss it. The Supreme Court also
handled by the designated Special determined that the dismissal by Branch 276
Commercial Court (Branch 256) in Muntinlupa incorrectly relied on precedents that were
City. On April 17, 2012, Branch 276 granted the inapplicable to cases involving
motion to dismiss, stating it lacked misassignment among branches of the same
jurisdiction. Petitioners filed a motion for RTC rather than between different RTCs.
reconsideration, arguing that they were not at
fault for the improper assignment and that the DOCTRINE:
case should have been transferred to the The Supreme Court established that when a
appropriate branch instead of being commercial case is incorrectly raffled to a
dismissed. However, their motion was denied regular branch of the RTC rather than to a
designated Special Commercial Court, the
on July 9, 2012, leading to the petition for
review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. proper response is not to dismiss the case.
Instead, it should be referred to the Executive
ISSUE: Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case
Did Branch 276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City and assigned to the correctly designated
err in dismissing the case for lack of court. This ruling aims to ensure the efficient
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the and fair administration of justice while
intra-corporate dispute? clarifying the distinctions between subject
matter jurisdiction and the exercise of
RULING: jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
petitioners, stating that Branch 276 had
incorrectly dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction. The Court noted that the case Barrido vs. Nonato, GR 176492
should have been transferred to Branch 256, FACTS:
the designated Special Commercial Court in The case revolves around the dispute between
Muntinlupa City. Marietta N. Barrido (petitioner) and Leonardo

30 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

V. Nonato (respondent) concerning the 3. Did the Court of Appeals err in
partition of a property acquired during their determining that Article 129 of the
marriage. The property in question is a house Family Code was inapplicable in the
and lot located at Eroreco, Bacolod City, present case?
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-140361. On March 15, 1996, their RULING:
marriage was declared void due to The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by
psychological incapacity. Following this Barrido and affirmed the decisions of the
declaration, Nonato sought to partition the lower courts. Thus, the ruling of the Court of
property, which Barrido contested, claiming Appeals and its Resolution were upheld,
the property had already been sold to their confirming the right of Nonato to seek partition
children, Joseph Raymund and Joseph Leo of the property.
Nonato. In response, Barrido also argued that RATIO:
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) The Supreme Court reasoned that the MTCC
lacked jurisdiction over the action, asserting had proper jurisdiction to adjudicate the case
that partition falls under actions incapable of since the assessed value of the property,
pecuniary estimation. The MTCC delivered its P8,080.00, fell well below the jurisdictional
judgment on September 17, 2003, awarding limit of P20,000.00 for real actions.
the property to Barrido based on Article 129 of Furthermore, while the RTC mistakenly relied
the Family Code, which pertains to the on Article 129 of the Family Code, it did not
dissolution of the conjugal partnership. affect the outcome of the case because the
Nonato appealed this ruling to the Regional essential issue—equitable partition of the
Trial Court (RTC), which, on July 21, 2004, property—was nonetheless correctly
reversed the MTCC's decision and ordered the addressed. The Court clarified that, despite
equitable partition of the property. The RTC's Barrido’s claim regarding the sale to their
ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Court children, the title remained under the names
of Appeals on November 16, 2006, stating that of both spouses, and Barrido failed to provide
the assessed value of the property was below sufficient proof of the validity of the alleged
the jurisdictional limit for cases to be tried by Deed of Sale. The Supreme Court emphasized
the MTCC. Barrido then filed a Motion for that, in a void marriage, the property acquired
Reconsideration, which was denied for lack of during the relationship is presumed to be co-
merit. Consequently, Barrido brought the case owned, governed by Article 147 of the Family
to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Code, which dictates how property is to be
Review, questioning the jurisdiction of the divided between parties in such unions.
MTCC, the status of the property after the Accordingly, the Court maintained that the
purported sale to their children, and the property must be shared equally between
application of Article 129 of the Family Code. both parties.
ISSUE: DOCTRINE:
The case raises the following issues: The case reaffirms the doctrine that properties
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding acquired during a void marriage are treated as
that the MTCC had jurisdiction to try co-owned unless proven otherwise, and
the present case? emphasizes the jurisdictional boundaries of
trial courts based on the assessed value of the
2. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling property in question. Specifically, it highlights
that the lot covered by TCT No. T- the application of Article 147 of the Family
140361 remains conjugal despite the Code concerning property relations in void
alleged sale to the children? marriages, establishing that distinctions

31 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph

between properties acquired during valid
marriages and those acquired during void
marriages are based on specific legislative
provisions.

32 Civil Procedure Cases WADigest via jur.ph