Republic Planters Bank vs. Molina 166 SCRA 39 September 28, 1988 GANCAYCO, J.

: (Guys, hindi to tungkol sa mga lupa, pagmamay-ari, registration, etc. About jurisdiction lang ang subject ng case na to. Kaya wala tong kwenta. Wala wala wala!!! HAHAHA) Facts: Two civil cases were filed by petitioner Republic Planters Bank against private respondent, for the collection of a sum of money based on a promissory note. The first was dismissed for failure of the petitioner to prosecute its case within a reasonable length of time. The other was filed by petitioner. However, a motion to dismiss was submitted by private respondents on the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment in the first civil case. Private respondents opined that said order was an adjudication upon the merits. Petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss, claiming that res judicata does not apply because the summons and complaint in in the first civil case were never served upon private respondents and, as such, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over private respondents and, consequently, over the case. Petitioner maintains that the order of dismissal in the first civil case never became final as against private respondents. Issue: Whether or not the cause of action in the second civil case is barred by prior judgment (res judicata). Ruling: No. For the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. If it did not acquire jurisdiction over the private respondents as parties to the first civil case, it cannot render any binding decision, favorable or adverse to them, or dismiss the case with prejudice which, in effect, is adjudication on the merits. The controverted orders in the first civil case disregarded the fundamental principles of remedial law and the meaning and the effect of jurisdiction. A judgment, to be considered res judicata, must be binding, and must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judgment is a nullity.

Dolino vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 127002 April 29, 2003 Carpio Morales, J. Facts: Private respondents Viking Management and Development Corp., et al. (Viking, et. al.), requested for the survey or resurvey of their respective lots. However, herein petitioners Jeremias L. Dolino, et al., officers of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, refused to accept such request. Such refusal is based on the ground that such lands were subject to the provisions of Presidential Proclamation No. 932 which prohibited the sale, entry, disposition or settlement of such lands in order to protect, maintain or improve the Kotkot and Lunsaran Watershed Forest Reserve located in Cebu and Davao. Hence, Viking et al., filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel Dolino, et al., to execute the survey or resurvey of their lots and render the necessary reports thereon. Issue: Whether or not the petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus is proper. Ruling: Yes. Under Sec. 17 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, "THE PROPERTY REGISTRATIONDECREE," a survey of a land subject of an application for registration is an essential requisite. If respondents fail to prove by satisfactory evidence their supposed vested or private rights over the remaining lots, then their applications for registration should necessarily be rejected by the cadastral court and/or land registration court. However, without these lots being surveyed, respondents would not be able to initiate and pursue, as the case may be, the proper land registration proceedings and would be precluded from establishing their claimed vested rights thereon.

Lamsis vs. Semon Dong-E G.R. No. 173021 October 20, 2010 DEL CASTILLO, J. Facts: Respondent, owner of the lot in question, tolerated the petitioners in possessing portions of such land. However, the latter began to expand their occupation on the lot in question and selling portions thereof. This prompted respondent to file a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession, reconveyance, and damages against the petitioners before the RTC. She likewise introduced as evidence an unnumbered resolution of the Community Special Task Force on Ancestral Lands of the DENR, acting favorably on her and her siblings ancestral land claim over a portion of the 186,090-square meter property. The resolution, however, was not signed by two members of the CSTFAL on the ground that the signing of the unnumbered resolution was overtaken by the enactment of the R.A. No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). The IPRA removed the authority of the DENR to issue ancestral land claim certificates and transferred the same to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The Ancestral Land Application of the Heirs of Gilbert Semon was transferred and redocketed to the NCIP. Petitioners assert that the reivindicatory action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in light of the enactment of the IPRA, which gives original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving ancestral lands and domains to the NCIP. Issue: Whether or not the ancestral land claim before the NCIP should take precedence over the reivindicatory action. Ruling: No. The application for issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title pending before the NCIP is akin to a registration proceeding. It also seeks an official recognition of ones claim to a particular land and is also in rem. The titling of ancestral lands is for the purpose of "officially establishing" ones land as an ancestral land. Just like a registration proceeding, the titling of ancestral lands does not vest ownership upon the applicant but only recognizes ownership that has already vested in the applicant by virtue of his and his predecessor-in-interests possession of the property since time immemorial.