DIGESTED CASES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE OF THE CASE NUMBERS
1. MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC, vs. HON. C. A. & AGAPITA TRAJANO on be !"# o# $ e Es$!$e o# ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO, G.R. No. 1%&'() A*+*s$ 1,, -&&, . . . . .

PAGE

-. MANCHESTER DEV. CORP., ET AL., vs. C.A. CIT/ LAND DEV. CORP., STEPHEN RO0AS, ANDRE1 LUISON, GRACE LUISON !n2 JOSE DE MAISIP, G.R. No. (3'1' M!4 (, 1'5( . . . . . . %. ASS. OF PHIL. COCONUT DESICCATORS, VS PHIL COCONUT AUTHORIT/,. G.R. No. 11&3-, Feb6*!64 1&, 1''5 .

). A/ALA CORP., LAS PI7AS VENTURES, INC., !n2 FIL. LIFE ASS. COM., INC., vs. HON. JOB B. MADA/AG, PRES. JUDGE, RTC, NAT. CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BR. 1)3 !n2 SPOUSES CAMILO AND MA. MARLENE SABIO. G.R. No. 55)-1 J!n*!64 %&, 1''& . . . . . . .

3. SPS ROLANDO M. 8OSA !n2 LUISA /. 8OSA, vs.HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, P6es J*2+e, R T C o# P!s9+ C9$4, B6. ,(, CHINATRUST :PHILS.; COMMERCIAL BAN< CORP, NOTAR/ PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL, REG. OF DEEDS FOR PASIG CIT/, CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 1)''5) Nove=be6 -5, -&&5 > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> SPS ROLANDO M. 8OSA !n2 LUISA /. 8OSA, vs. C.A., HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, P6eS J*2+e, R T C o# P!s9+ C9$4, B6. ,(, CHINATRUST :PHILS.; COMMERCIAL BAN< CORP., NOTAR/ PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL , CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 13)''1 Nove=be6 -5, -&&5 . . . . . . ,. DOLORES MONTEFALCON & LAURENCE MONTEFALCON, vs. RONNIE S. VAS?UE8, . G.R. No. 1,3&1, J*ne 1(, -&&5 . . . (. GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOP., INC. :GUCCI;, vs. AIDA TORRES, NONILO TORRES !n2 SHER/L ANN TORRES.HOLGADO. G.R. No. 1(&'-, Se@$e=be6 13, -&&, . . 5. AUGUSTO A. CAMARA AND FELICIANA CAMARA, vs. HON. C. A. AND CELINA R. HERNAE8,. G.R. No. 1&&(5' J*"4 -&, 1''' . . .

9. PROV. OF 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE, 6e@ b4 GOV. ISAGANI S. AMATONG , Versus C. A. !n2 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., . 3

1&. MELOD/ PAULINO LOPE8, vs. NAT. LABOR REL. COMMISSION, LETRAN COLLEGE.MANILA, FR. ROGELIO ALARCON, O.P., FR. ED1IN LAO, O.P. !n2 MS. PERL/ NAVARRO, G.R. No. 1-)3)5 OA$obe6 5, 1''5 . . . . 11. PEDRO SEPULVEDA, SR., s*bs. b4 SOCORRO S. LA1AS, A2=9n. o# H9s Es$!$e, , vs. ATT/. PACIFICO S. PELAE8, . G.R. No. 13-1'3 J!n*!64 %1, -&&3 . . . 1-. RADIO COMMS. OF THE PHILS, INC. VS. C. A. %5, SCRA ,(. A*+*s$ 1, -&&. .

1%. NG SOON, vs. HON. ALO/SIUS ALDA/, RTC, ?UE8ON CIT/, BILLIE GAN AND CHINA BAN<ING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 535(' Se@$e=be6 -', 1'5' . . . 14. MODESTA CALIMLIM AND LAMBERTO MAGALI IN HIS CAP. AS ADMIN. OF THE ESTATE OF DOMINGO MAGALI, vs. HON. PEDRO A. RAMIRE8 G.R. No. L.%)%,- Nove=be6 1', 1'5. . . 13. LA NAVAL DRUG CORP., vs. C A !n2 1ILSON C. /AO. G.R. No. 1&%-&& A*+*s$ %1, 1'') . . .

'

1&

1,. BRG/. SAN RO?UE, TALISA/, CEBU, vs. He96s o# FRANCISCO PASTOR n!=e"4B EUGENIO S/LIANCO, TEODORO S/LIANCO, TEODORO S/LIANCO, ISABEL S/LIANCO, EUGENIA S. ONG, LA1RENCE S/LIANCO, LA1SON S/LIANCO, LA1INA S. NOTARIO, LEONARDO S/LIANCO JR. !n2 LA1FORD S/LIANCO. G.R. No. 1%55', J*ne -&, -&&& . . . . . . . 17. MIGUELITO LIMACO, ET AL. VS. SHONAN GA<UEN CHILDRENCS HOUSE PHILIPPINES, INC. G.R. No. 135-)3. J*ne %&, -&&3 . . . . 15. FILOMENA DOMAGAS, vs. VIVIAN LA/NO JENSEN. G.R. No. 135)&( J!n*!64 1(, -&&3 . .

11

1-

1%

1'. RO0AS & CO., INC., vs. C.A., DEP. OF AGR. REFORM, SEC. OF AGR. REFORM, DAR REG. DIR. FOR REG. IV, MUN. AGR.REFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS DEP. OF AGR. REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD,. G.R. No. 1-(5(,. DeAe=be6 1(, 1''' . . . . . . -&. SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., :SIOL;, E.B. PHILIPPS !n2 D.J. 1ARB/, vs. HON. MA0IMIANO C. ASUNCION, P6es. J*2+e, B6 1&), R T C, ?*eDon C9$4 !n2 MANUEL CHUA U/ PO TIONG. G.R. Nos. (''%(.%5 Feb6*!64 1%, 1'5' . . . . -1. SPOUSES PATRIC< AND RAFAELA JOSE VS. SPOUSES HELEN AND ROMEO BO/ON G.R. No. 1)(%,'. OA$obe6 -%, -&&% . --.

1)

13

1,

FRANCISCO S. HERNANDE8 !n2 JOSEFA U. ATIEN8A, vs. RURAL BAN< OF LUCENA, INC., CENTRAL BAN< OF THE PHILIPPINES, !n2 JOSE S. MARTINE8 9n 9s A!@!A9$4 !s ReAe9ve6 o# R*6!" B!nE o# L*Aen!, G.R. No. L.-'('1 J!n*!64 1&, 1'(5 . . . . . . . -%. NILO H. RA/MUNDO, vs .C A, HON. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS, P6es. J*2+e, RTC, B6. ,(, P!s9+ C9$4, !n2 JUAN MARCOS ARELLANO . G.R. No. 1%(('%. Se@$e=be6 -', 1''' . . . .

1(

15

-). LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., :#o6=e6"4 L!#!6+e P 9"9@@9nes, InA.;, LU8ON CONTINENTAL LAND CORP, CONTINENTAL OPERATING CORP. !n2 PHILIP ROSEBERG, vs. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION, GREGOR/ T. LIM !n2 ANTHON/ A. MARIANO, G.R. No. 1331(% Nove=be6 -%, -&&) . . . .

-&

-3. ABRAHAM GEGARE, vs. C.A, !n2 SPS. MELENCIO !n2 SOTERA C. LAVARES, G.R. No. 1%--,). OA$obe6 5, 1''5 . . . . . . -,. COLUMBIA PICTURES ENT., INC., MGM ENT. CO., ORION PICTURES CORP, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., UNIVERSAL CIT/ STUDIOS, INC., THE 1ALT DISNE/ COMP !n2 1ARNER BROTHERS, INC., vs. C. A., !n2 JOSE B. JINGCO o# SHO1TIME ENTERPRISES., INC., G.R. No. 111-,(. Se@$e=be6 -&, 1'', . . . . -(. DAVAO LIGHT & PO1ER CO., INC., Vs C. A., HON. RODOLFO M. BELLAFLOR, P6eS. J*2+e o# B6!nA 11, RTC.Ceb* !n2 FRANCISCO TESORERO,. G.R. No. 111,53. A*+*s$ -&, -&&1 . . . . . -5. ROMEO C. GARCIA, vs. DIONISIO V. LLAMAS, G.R. No. 13)1-(. DeAe=be6 5, -&&% . -'. ASIAN CONST. & DEV. CORP. vs. C. A !n2 MONAR< E?UIPMENT CORP., G.R. No. 1,&-)M!4 1(, -&&3

-1

-1

--

-%

-3

%&. 1OOD TECH. CORP. :1TC;, CHI TIM CORDOVA AND ROBERT TIONG <ING /OUNG, vs. E?UITABLE BAN<ING CORP. G.R. No. 13%5,( Feb6*!64 1(, -&&3 . . . . . %1. ASSOCIATED BAN<, vs. SPS JUSTINIANO S. MONTANO, SR., LIGA/A MONTANO !n2 TRES CRUCES AGRO.INDUSTRIAL CORP. G.R. No. 1,,%5% OA$obe6 1,, -&&' . . . . %-. PER<IN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD., versus DA<ILA TRADING CORP., G.R. No. 1(--)- A*+*s$ 1), -&&( .

-,

-(

-5

%%. MIGUELITO B. LIMACO, ROGELIO LIMACO, JR., !n2 ISIDRO LIMACO, vs. SHONAN GA<UEN CHILDRENCS HOUSE PHILS, INC., G.R. No. 135-)3 J*ne %&, -&&3 . . .

-'

%). LAGRIMAS PACA7A.GON8ALES, one o# $ e e96s o# L*A9!no P!A!F!, vs. C.AP. !n2 MANUEL CARBONELL PHUA, G.R. No. 13&'&5 J!n*!64 -1, -&&3 . . . . %3. PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR., VS. PNOC E0PLORATION CORPORATION, G.R. No. 1(&')%, Se@$e=be6 -%, -&&5 . . . .

%&

%1

%,. NICASIO P. RODRIGUE8 JR., ANTONIO P. ERE7ETA, JUANITO A. MAGNO, VICTOR C. PINEDA, BITUIN V. SALCEDO, CESAR R. SAN DIEGO, VICTOR V. TANTOCO !n2 AMADOR C. DE LA MERCED, vs. ANTONIO L. AGUILAR SR.. G.R. No. 13')5-. A*+*s$ %&, -&&3 . . . . . . %(. ED1IN N. TRIBIANA, vs. LOURDES M. TRIBIANA, G.R. No. 1%(%3' Se@$e=be6 1%, -&&) .

%-

%-

38. LEONARDO ARCENAS, 6e@. b4 9s !$$o6ne4.9n.#!A$ CARMELITA ARCENAS VILLANUEVA, vs. C.A., Hon. ARMIE E. ELMA, P6es. J*2+e o# B6. 13%, RTC o# P!s9+ C9$4, !n2 JOSE DELA RIVA, G.R. No. 1%&)&1 DeAe=be6 ), 1''5 . . . . %'. JOSEPHINE B. NG !n2 JESSE NG, vs. SPOUSES MARCELO !n2 MARIA FE SOCO, !n2 MARVIN J. SOCO, G.R. No. 1)'1%M!4 ', -&&. . . )&. A/ALA LAND, INC., vs. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, 9n 9s A!@!A9$4 !s P6es. J*2+e, RTC.I=*s, B6. -&, ASB REALT/ CORP., !n2 E. M. RAMOS & SONS, INC.,

%%

%)

%)

)1. SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA, vs. C. A, GERTRUDES B. MAG.ISA, =!669e2 $o !n2 !ss9s$e2 b4 PEDRO MAG.ISA, G.R. No. 1&1,5- DeAe=be6 1), 1''. . .

%3

42. LUD1IG H. ADA8A, vs. SANDIGANBA/AN :$ e F96s$ DIVISION Ao=@ose2 o# J*s$9Aes GREGORIO S. ONG, CATALINO R. CASTANEDA, JR. !n2 FRANCISCO H. VILLARU8, JR. !n2 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 6e@6esen$e2 b4 SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE, G.R. No. 13)55,. J*"4 -5, -&&3 . . . . . .

%,

43. CALIFORNIA AND HA1AIIAN SUGAR COMG PACIFIC GULF MARINE, INC.G !n2 C.F. SHARP & COMPAN/, vs. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURET/ CORPORATION, %( )). JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., INC., vs. S@s. SUHARTO MANGUDADATU !n2 MIRIAM SANG<I MANGUDADATU, G.R. No. 133&1& A*+*s$ 1,, -&&) . . . . . )3. LUCIANO ELLO !n2 GAUDIOSA ELLO, vs. CA, SPRINGFIELD DEV. CORP. !n2 CONSTANTINO G. JARAULA, G.R. No. 1)1-33 J*ne -1, -&&3 . . . . 46.

%5

)&

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORIT/ VS. ALA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION G.R. No. 1)(%)'. Feb6*!64 1%, -&&) . . )(. BAILINANG MAROHOMBSAR VS. JUDGE SANTOS ADIONG G.R. No. RTJ.&-.1,(). J!n*!64 --, -&&)

)1

)-

48. MARIO SIASOCO, ANGELITA E. SIASOCO, MA. BELLA SIASOCO, ESTER SIASOCO.LAMUG, MA. LOURDES SIASOCO LAMUG.BARRIOS, MA. RAMONA SIASOCO.LAMUG, MA. VICTORIA SIASOCO LAMUG.DOMINGUE8, BELEN SIASOCO.JOSE, RAFAEL SIASOCO JOSE, C/NTHIA SIASOCO JOSE, CRISTINA SIASOCO JOSE, ROBERTO SIASOCO JOSE, CARIDAD SIASOCO JOSE, RAMON SIASOCO JOSE, OSCAR SIASOCO, RUBEN SIASOCO, SALOME SIASOCO.PA8, MEDARDO PA8 SIASOCO, ROLANDO PA8 SIASOCO, JESUS PA8 SIASOCO, NELL/ STO. DOMINGO NARIO, MAR/ GRACE STO. DOMINGO NARIO !n2 MAR/ ANNE STO. DOMINGO NARIO, vs. COURT OF APPEALSG HON. MARCELINO BAUTISTA JR., P6es. J*2+e, B6. -13, R T C, ?*eDon C9$4G !n2 $ e IGLESIA NI CRISTO, G.R. No. 1%-(3% Feb6*!64 13, 1''' . . . . . . . 49. NORA A. BITONG, vs. C.A :FIFTH DIVISION;, EUGENIA D. APOSTOL, JOSE A. APOSTOL, MR. & MS. PUBLISHING CO., LETT/ J. MAGSANOC, AND ADORACION G. NU/DA, NORA A. BITONG, vs. C.A. :FIFTH DIVISION; !n2 EDGARDO B. ESPIRITU, G.R. No. 1-%33%. J*"4 1%, 1''5 . . . . . . 3&. MARCIANA SERDONCILLO, vs. SPS. FIDEL !n2 EVEL/N BENOLIRAO, MELITON CARISIMA, !n2 COURT OF APPEALS,. G.R. No. 115%-5 OA$obe6 5, 1''5 . . . . .

)%

))

)3

31. ALLIED AGRI.BUSINESS DEV. CO., INC., vs. C. A. !n2 CHERR/ VALLE/ FARMS LIMITED, G.R. No. 115)%5 DeAe=be6 ), 1''5 . . . . . . . 3-. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROMEO HILLADO, G.R. No. 1--5%5. M!4 -), 1''' . . . 3%. ASIAVEST LIMITED, vs. C. A !n2 ANTONIO HERAS, G.R. No. 1-55&% Se@$e=be6 -3, 1''5 . .

),.

),

)(

G.R. No. 1%&'() A*+*s$ 1,, -&&, MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC, Pe$9$9one6, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS !n2 AGAPITA TRAJANO on be !"# o# $ e Es$!$e o# ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO, Res@on2en$s. FACTSB In the case of Trajano vs. Manotoc for wrongful death of the deceased Arch !edes Trajano co!! tted "# M l tar# Intell gence under the co!!and of Ma. I!elda M. Manotoc. $ased u%on the co!%la nt the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt ssued a su!!ons at the house of Manotoc. The sa d Mac(e# dela 'ru) *careta(er+ rece ved the su!!ons. Manotoc was declared n default for fa lure to answer. ISSUEB ,hether or not the &T' ac-u re a val d jur sd ct on for the serv ce of su!!ons over the %et t oner. .

HELDB The &eg onal Tr al 'ourt d d not ac-u re jur sd ct on over the %et t oner/ "ecause the su"st tuted serv ce of su!!ons was defect ve n nature or nval d at the f rst %lace. The !a n fact that the su!!ons was not sent n the %et t oner0s dwell ng/ The sa d careta(er was not a %erson of su ta"le age and d scret on and was not res ded n the sa d address. 1ence the re-u s tes of su"st tuted su!!ons was not followed/ therefore the &T' d d not ac-u re jur sd ct on over the %et t oner at the f rst %lace.

G.R. No. (3'1' M!4 (, 1'5( MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., @e$9$9one6s, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CIT/ LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN RO0AS, ANDRE1 LUISON, GRACE LUISON !n2 JOSE DE MAISIP, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB Th s was or g nall# a case of an act on for torts and da!ages and s%ec f c %erfor!ance w th a %ra#er for te!%orar# restra n ng order. The da!ages were not s%ec f call# stated n the %ra#er "ut the "od# of the co!%la nt assessed a 2 78.7. M. da!ages suffered "# the %et t oner. The a!ount of doc(et fee %a d was onl# 2413.33. The %et t oner then a!ended the co!%la nt and reduced the da!ages to 213 M onl#. ISSUESB ,hen does a court ac-u re jur sd ct on4 5oes an a!ended co!%la nt vest jur sd ct on n the court4 HELDB The court ac-u res jur sd ct on over an# case onl# u%on the %a#!ent of the %rescr "ed doc(et fee. An a!end!ent of the co!%la nt or s ! lar %lead ng w ll not vest jur sd ct on n the court/ !uch less the %a#!ent of the doc(et fee "ased on the a!ounts sought n the a!ended %lead ng. All co!%la nts/ %et t ons/ answers and other s ! lar %lead ngs should s%ec f# the a!ount of da!ages "e ng %ra#ed for. 5a!ages shall "e cons dered n the assess!ent of the f l ng fees n an# case.

G.R. No. 11&3-, Feb6*!64 1&, 1''5 ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE COCONUT DESICCATORS, @e$9$9one6, VS PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORIT/, 6es@on2en$. FACTSB 2et t oner alleged that the ssuance of l censes to the a%%l cants would v olate 2'A6s Ad! n strat ve 7rder/ the tr al court ssued a te!%orar# restra n ng order and/ wr t of %rel ! nar# njunct on/ wh le the case was %end ng n the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt/ the 8overn ng $oard of the 2'A ssued a &esolut on for the w thdrawal of the 2h l %% ne 'oconut Author t# fro! all regulat on of the coconut %roduct %rocess ng ndustr#. ,h le t cont nues the reg strat on of coconut %roduct %rocessors/ the reg strat on would "e l ! ted to the 9!on tor ng9 of the r volu!es of %roduct on and ad! n strat on of -ual t# standards. The 2'A ssue 9cert f cates of reg strat on9 to those w sh ng to o%erate des ccated coconut %rocess ng %lants/ %ro!%t ng %et t oner to a%%eal to the 7ff ce of the 2res dent of the 2h l %% nes for not to a%%rove the resolut on n -uest on. 5es% te follow:u% letters sent %et t oner rece ved no re%l# fro! the 7ff ce of the 2res dent. The 9cert f cates of reg strat on9 ssued n the !eant !e "# the 2'A has ena"led a nu!"er of new coconut ! lls to o%erate.

ISSUESB At ssue n th s case s the val d t# of a resolut on/ of the 2h l %% ne 'oconut Author t# n wh ch t declares that t w ll no longer re-u re those w sh ng to engage n coconut %rocess ng to a%%l# to t for a l cense or %er! t as a cond t on for engag ng n such "us ness. HELDB The %et t on s 8&A;T<5. 2'A &esolut on and all cert f cates of reg strat on ssued under t are here"# declared ;=>> and ?7I5 for hav ng "een ssued n e@cess of the %ower of the 2h l %% ne 'oconut Author t# to ado%t or ssue. The 2'A cannot rel# on the !e!orandu! of then 2res dent A-u no for author t# to ado%t the resolut on n -uest on. The 2res dent A-u no a%%roved the esta"l sh!ent and o%erat on of new 5'; %lants subject to the guidelines to be drawn by the PCA. In the f rst %lace/ t could not have ntended to a!end the several laws alread# !ent oned/ wh ch set u% the regulator# s#ste!/ "# a !ere !e!oranda to the 2'A. In the second %lace/ even f that had "een her ntent on/ her act would "e w thout effect cons der ng that/ when she ssued the !e!orandu! n -uest on on Ae"ruar# 11/ 1988/ she was no longer vested w th leg slat ve author t#.

G.R. No. 55)-1 J!n*!64 %&, 1''& A/ALA CORPORATION, LAS PI7AS VENTURES, INC., !n2 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPAN/, INC., @e$9$9one6s vs. THE HONORABLE JOB B. MADA/AG, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 1)3 !n2 THE SPOUSES CAMILO AND MA. MARLENE SABIO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTS: 2r vate res%ondents f led aga nst %et t oners an act on for s%ec f c %erfor!ance w th da!ages n the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt of Ma(at . 2et t oners f led a !ot on to d s! ss on the ground that the lower court has not ac-u red jur sd ct on over the case as %r vate res%ondents fa led to %a# the %rescr "ed doc(et fee and to s%ec f# the a!ount of e@e!%lar# da!ages "oth n the "od# and %ra#er of the a!ended and su%%le!ental co!%la nt. The tr al court den ed the !ot on. A !ot on for recons derat on f led "# %et t oners was l (ew se den ed. The !a n thrust of the %et t on s that %r vate res%ondent %a d onl# the total a!ount of 2 l/616.33 as doc(et fees nstead of the a!ount of 213/361.3. "ased on the assessed value of the real %ro%ert es nvolved as ev denced "# ts ta@ declarat on. Aurther/ %et t oners contend that %r vate res%ondents fa led to s%ec f# the a!ount of e@e!%lar# da!ages sought "oth n the "od# and the %ra#er of the a!ended and su%%le!ental co!%la nt. ISSUESB ,hether or not the &T' ac-u re jur sd ct on for not s%ec f# ng the correct a!ount of doc(et fees. HELDB The tr al court !a# e ther order sa d cla ! to "e e@%unged fro! the record as t d d not ac-u re jur sd ct on over the sa!e or on !ot on/ t !a# allow/ w th n a reasona"le t !e/ the a!end!ent of the a!ended and su%%le!ental co!%la nt so as to state the %rec se a!ount of the e@e!%lar# da!ages sought and re-u re the %a#!ent of the re-u s te fees therefore w th n the relevant %rescr %t ve %er od. The tr al court s d rected e ther to e@%unge fro! the record the cla ! for e@e!%lar# da!ages n the a!ended and su%%le!ental co!%la nt/ the a!ount of wh ch s not s%ec f ed/ or t !a# otherw se/ u%on !ot on/ g ve reasona"le t !e to %r vate res%ondents to a!end the r %lead ng "# s%ec f# ng ts a!ount and %a# ng the corres%ond ng doc(et ng fees w th n the a%%ro%r ate regle!entar# or %rescr %t ve %er od. 7

G.R. No. 1)''5)

Nove=be6 -5, -&&5

SPOUSES ROLANDO M. 8OSA !n2 LUISA /. 8OSA,@e$9$9one6s, vs. HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, 9n 9s A!@!A9$4 !s P6es929n+ J*2+e, Re+9on!" T69!" Co*6$ o# P!s9+ C9$4, B6!nA ,(, CHINATRUST :PHILS.; COMMERCIAL BAN< CORPORATION, NOTAR/ PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR PASIG CIT/, !n2 CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION,6es@on2en$s. > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> G.R. No. 13)''1 Nove=be6 -5, -&&5 SPOUSES ROLANDO M. 8OSA !n2 LUISA /. 8OSA,@e$9$9one6s, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, 9n 9s A!@!A9$4 !s P6es929n+ J*2+e, Re+9on!" T69!" Co*6$ o# P!s9+ C9$4, B6!nA ,(, CHINATRUST :PHILS.; COMMERCIAL BAN< CORPORATION, NOTAR/ PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL FOR PASIG CIT/, !n2 CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTSB Th s s the two *2+ cases/ nvolved "# the sa!e %art es/ for the sa!e cause of act on/ wh ch s f led success vel# for the sa!e %ur%ose of o"ta n ng a favora"le rel ef. ISSUEB ,hether or not the tr al court0s d s! ssal order for non su t const tutes foru! sho%% ng. HELDB The a%%eal for the d s! ssal order for non su t const tutes foru! sho%% ng and t s %ro%er to d s! ss "ecause t would const tute d fferent and unfavora"le result/ to avo d the resultant confus on the court str ctl# aga nst foru! sho%% ng and !# v olat on const tutes d s! ssal of the case. G.R. No. 1,3&1, J*ne 1(, -&&5

DOLORES MONTEFALCON & LAURENCE MONTEFALCON, @e$9$9one6s, vs. RONNIE S. VAS?UE8, 6es@on2en$. FACTSB 5olores f led a co!%la nt co!%la nt for ac(nowledg!ent and su%%ort aga nst res%ondent &onn e ?as-ue) for h s son >aurence Montefalcon. ISSUESB 1. ,as there a val d su"st tuted serv ce of su!!ons on ?as-ue)4 2. ,as the res%ondent o"l ged to g ve su%%ort to >aurence4 HELDB 1. There was a val d su"st tuted serv ce of su!!ons "ecause t was sent to h s last (nown address and t was rece ved "# &a-uel $ejer a careta(er of h s res dent. A %erson who s of su ta"le age and d scret on and s also res d ng at ?as-ue)0s dwell ng. All of the re-u s tes for su"st tuted serv ce were followed "# the %et t oner. 2. &onn e ?as-ue) was o"l ged to g ve su%%ort "ecause t was recogn )ed "# h !. The fact tself that the res%ondent (nows that the sa d >aurence Montefalcon was h s son and that he was %rev ousl# gave su%%ort to >aurence "efore he went a"road.

G.R. No. 1(&'-,

Se@$e=be6 13, -&&,

GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. :GUCCI;, @e$9$9one6, vs. AIDA TORRES, NONILO TORRES !n2 SHER/L ANN TORRES.HOLGADO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB &es%ondents ava led loan fro! the coo%erat ve "ut were una"le to %a# on due dates s%ec f ed. The coo%erat ve f led a co!%la nt n the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt for su! of !one# and da!ages. The res%ondents were g ven su!!ons and t s rece ved "# $en ta 2aglawanan/ the sa d to "e the secretar# of the defendants. ISSUEB ,hether or not the su!!ons was val dl# served on the res%ondents HELDB If the %ersonal serv ce of su!!ons cannot "e resorted then the su"st tuted serv ce of su!!ons !a# follow. It s effected "# leav ng co% es of su!!ons at the defendant0s dwell ng w th so!e %erson su ta"le of age and d scret on res d ng there n/ or "# leav ng the co% es n defendants off ce or "us ness w th a co!%etent %erson n charge. A co!%etent %erson !ust have a trust and conf dence relat onsh % w th the res%ondent. $en ta 2agtalunan who rece ved the su!!ons and who s alleged to "e the secretar# of the three *3+ res%ondents d d not have an# relat onsh % of Trust and conf dence w th the sa d res%ondents. Therefore such serv ce of su!!ons s not " nd ng and s not val d.

G.R. No. 1&&(5' J*"4 -&, 1''' AUGUSTO A. CAMARA AND FELICIANA CAMARA, @e$9$9one6s, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND CELINA R. HERNAE8, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB Bulueta sold a %arcel of land n favor of 'a!ara. After the e@ecut on of the deed of sale/ the latter found out that the t tle was "urdened w th two encu!"rances. 1e then f led an act on for s%ec f c %erfor!ance aga nst Bulueta to re!ove the encu!"rances. The tr al court ordered Bulueta to cancel the !ortgages or return the %urchase %r ce of 21./333. ,hen Bulueta d ed/ 'a!ara ava led of the alternat ve re!ed# "# %resent ng a !one# cla ! as cred tor n the ntestate estate of the for!er. 1e was granted %art al e@ecut on of 213/333. 1ernae)/ the !ortgagee of the lot a%%ear ng on the t tle/ f led an act on for jud c al foreclosure of the contract of !ortgage aga nst the for!er0s he rs. The tr al court ruled n favor of 1ernae). The %ro%ert# nvolved was sold n a %u"l c auct on and a corres%ond ng cert f cate of sale was awarded to 1ernae) as the h ghest " dder and a jud c al conf r!at on of ownersh % was ssued. 'a!ara then nst tuted a case for -u et ng of t tle aga nst 1ernae) "efore the Ma(at &T' wh ch d s! ssed the case. The 'ourt of A%%eals aff r!ed the d s! ssal and ruled that 'a!ara has no cause of act on aga nst 1ernae). ISSUEB ,hether or not the act on for -u et ng of t tle should "e d s! ssed on the ground of lac( of cause of act on. 9

HELDB A cause of act on s def ned as an act or o! ss on "# wh ch a %art# v olates a r ght of another. 'a!ara0s cause of act on arose fro! the contract of sale e@ecuted "# Bulueta n h s favor. The act of the vendor Bulueta of sell ng a %ro%ert# "urdened w th encu!"rances/ n v olat on of the warrant# that t was free fro! l ens and encu!"rances/ was alread# atoned when 'a!ara o"ta ned a dec s on n the act on for s%ec f c %erfor!ance where 'a!ara o%ted to %resent a !one# cla ! aga nst the estate of Bulueta and was granted %art al e@ecut on. 'onse-uentl#/ 'a!ara cannot aga n rel# on the sa!e v olat on of warrant# as a cause of act on for -u et ng of t tle. PROVINCE OF 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE, 6e@6esen$e2 b4 GOV. ISAGANI S. AMATONG, petitioner, Versus COURT OF APPEALS !n2 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., respondents. FACTSB 2et t oner 2rov nce of Ba!"oanga del ;orte *re%resented "# 8ov. Isagan C. A!atong+ f led w th the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt/ a co!%la nt aga nst Ba!"oanga del ;orte <lectr c 'oo%erat ve *BA;<'7+ for DIllegal 'ollect on 7f 2ower $ lls And 2rel ! nar# Injunct on , th &estra n ng 7rder.E 2et t oner alleged that as %er electr c " lls ssued "# BA;<'7 ncreased the Auel 'o!%ensat ng 'harge *A''+ 2et t oner cla !ed that the ncrease was ar" trar# and llegal/ and that the <nerg# &egulator# $oard *<&$+ d d not sanct on the collect ons. 2et t oner also alleged that BA;<'7 cannot ncrease the " lls s nce the %ower rate ncrease fro! the ;at onal 2ower 'or%orat on *;2'+ was not !%le!ented #et due to a restra n ng order ssued "# the Cu%re!e 'ourt. The tr al court ssued a wr t of %rel ! nar# njunct on order ng res%ondent to des st fro! !%os ng/ charg ng/ " ll ng and collect ng the A'' and other add t onal charges u%on ts end:users n Ba!"oanga del ;orte and to refra n fro! cutt ng off the electr c l nes of those who refused to %a# the -uest oned charges/ %end ng deter! nat on of the l t gat on. 2et t oner su"! ts that jur sd ct on s vested w th the <nerg# &egulator# $oard or the regular tr al courts/ wh le res%ondents %os t on s that jur sd ct on l es w th the ;at onal <lectr f cat on Ad! n strat on. ,hat s "efore the 'ourt s a %et t on for rev ew on certiorari assa l ng the dec s on of the 'ourt of A%%eals/ that reversed the orders of the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt/ Ba!"oanga del ;orte den# ng %et t oner0s !ot on for d s! ssal of the co!%la nt. ISSUEB ,h ch govern!ent agenc# has jur sd ct on over a co!%la nt for llegal collect on of %ower " lls "# an electr c coo%erat ve4 HELDB The regulat on and f @ ng of %ower rates to "e charged "# electr c coo%erat ves re!a n w th n the jur sd ct on of the ;at onal <lectr f cat on Ad! n strat on/ des% te the enact!ent of <@ecut ve 7rder ;o. 172/ creat ng the <nerg# &egulator# $oard. The ssue ra sed n the co!%la nt s the legal t# of the !%os t on of the A'' or I''. 5es% te the fact that d esel fuel was used to run ts !ach ner#/ the fact s that res%ondent charged ts consu!ers to co!%ensate for the ncrease n the %r ce of fuel. 2et t oner d d not -uest on the %r ce of d esel fuel. &ather/ t -uest oned the charges %assed on to ts end users as a result of ncrease n the %r ce of fuel. And the "od# w th the techn cal e@%ert se to deter! ne whether or not the charges are legal s the ;<A. The doctr ne of %r !ar# jur sd ct on does not warrant a court to arrogate unto tself the author t# to resolve a controvers# the jur sd ct on over wh ch s n t all# lodged w th an ad! n strat ve "od# of s%ec al co!%etence. In fact/ a %art# w th an ad! n strat ve re!ed# !ust not !erel# n t ate the %rescr "ed ad! n strat ve %rocedure to o"ta n rel ef/ "ut also %ursue t to ts a%%ro%r ate conclus on "efore see( ng jud c al ntervent on. The underl# ng %r nc %le of the rule on e@haust on of ad! n strat ve re!ed es rests on the %resu!%t on that when the ad! n strat ve "od#/ or gr evance !ach ner#/ s afforded a chance to %ass u%on 13

the !atter/ t w ll dec de the sa!e correctl#. The %re!ature nvocat on of the jur sd ct on of the tr al court warrants the d s! ssal of the case. It AAAI&M in toto with the dec s on of the 'ourt of A%%eals. G.R. No. 1-)3)5 OA$obe6 5, 1''5 MELOD/ PAULINO LOPE8, @e$9$9one6, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LETRAN COLLEGE.MANILA, FR. ROGELIO ALARCON, O.P., FR. ED1IN LAO, O.P. !n2 MS. PERL/ NAVARRO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB Aor allegedl# utter ng ndecent and o"scene re!ar(s aga nst a !e!"er of ad! n strat on/ Melod# >o%e) was %laced under %revent ve sus%ens on for th rt# *33+ da#s. Che later found out that e!%lo#!ent f le conta ned several unsavor# re%orts w thout her "e ng g ven the chance to defend her s de. Thereafter/ she was d s! ssed fro! her e!%lo#!ent "ased on that nc dent and other %ast ! sconducts a%%ear ng n e!%lo#!ent f le. Che f led a case for llegal d s! ssal. ISSUEB ,hether or not the d s! ssal s warranted "ased on the ev dence %resented. HELDB The d s! ssal was llegal. The %ast nfract ons cannot "e collect vel# ta(en as a just f cat on for her d s! ssal fro! the serv ce. The %et t oner s not re-u red to %rove her nnocence on the charges leveled aga nst her "ut the "urden rests u%on the res%ondent to esta"l sh the val d cause of ter! nat on. ,here there s a"sence of clear/ val d and legal cause of ter! nat on/ the law cons ders t a case of llegal d s! ssal. In ter! nat on cases/ the "urden of %rov ng the just cause of d s! ss ng an e!%lo#ee rests on the e!%lo#er/ and h s fa lure to do so would result n a f nd ng that the d s! ssal s not just f ed. 1av ng fa led to esta"l sh "# concrete and d rect ev dence/ no su"stant al "as s e@ sts for %et t oner0s d s! ssal. G.R. No. 13-1'3 J!n*!64 %1, -&&3

PEDRO SEPULVEDA, SR., s*bs$9$*$e2 b4 SOCORRO S. LA1AS, A2=9n9s$6!$69> o# H9s Es$!$e, @e$9$9one6, vs. ATT/. PACIFICO S. PELAE8, respondent. FACTSB Att#. 2ac f co 2elae) f led a co!%la nt aga nst h s granduncle/ 2edro Ce%ulveda/ Cr./ for the recover# of %ossess on and ownersh % of h s share of several %arcels of landF and for the %art t on thereof a!ong the co:owners. In h s co!%la nt/ the %r vate res%ondent alleged that h s !other 5ulce d ed ntestate and as de fro! h !self/ was surv ved "# her hus"and &odolfo 2elae) and her !other 'arlota Ce%ulveda. 5ulce0s grandfather ? cente Ce%ulveda d ed ntestate and 5ulce was then onl# a"out four #ears old. The %r vate res%ondent alleged that he h !self de!anded the del ver# of h s !other0s share n the su"ject %ro%ert es on so !an# occas ons/ the last of wh ch was n 1972/ to no ava l. The %r vate res%ondent further narrated that h s granduncle e@ecuted an aff dav t stat ng that he was the sole he r of 5 on s a when n fact/ the latter was surv ved "# her three sons/ Cant ago/ 2edro and ? cente. 2edro Ce%ulveda/ Cr. also e@ecuted a 5eed of A"solute Cale n favor of the ' t# of 5anao for 27/492.33. Accord ng to the %r vate res%ondent/ h s granduncle rece ved th s a!ount w thout h s *%r vate res%ondent0s+ (nowledge. The tr al court ruled that the %r vate res%ondent0s act on for reconve#ance "ased on construct ve trust had not #et %rescr "ed when the co!%la nt was f ledF that he

11

was ent tled to a share n the %roceeds of the sale of the %ro%ert# to 5anao ' t#F and that the %art t on of the su"ject %ro%ert# a!ong the adjud catees thereof was n order. The %et t oner a%%ealed the dec s on to the 'A/ wh ch rendered judg!ent on Ganuar# 31/ 2332/ aff r! ng the a%%ealed dec s on w th !od f cat on. The %et t oner now co!es to the 'ourt via a %et t on for rev ew on certiorari/ contend ng that the a%%ellate court erredH

ISSUESB ,hether or not the &T'0C judg!ent was val dl# rendered HELDB &odolfo 2elae) s an nd s%ensa"le %art# he "e ng ent tled to a share n usufruct/ e-ual to the share of the res%ondent n the su"ject %ro%ert es. The %la nt ff s !andated to !%lead all the nd s%ensa"le %art es/ cons der ng that the a"sence of one such %art# renders all su"se-uent act ons of the court null and vo d for want of author t# to act/ not onl# as to the a"sent %art es "ut even as to those %resent. , thout the %resence of all the other he rs as %la nt ffs/ the tr al court could not val dl# render judg!ent and grant rel ef n favor of the %r vate res%ondent. The fa lure of the %r vate res%ondent to !%lead the other he rs as %art es:%la nt ffs const tuted a legal o"stacle to the tr al court and the a%%ellate court0s e@erc se of jud c al %ower over the sa d case/ and rendered an# orders or judg!ents rendered there n a null t#. To re terate/ the a"sence of an nd s%ensa"le %art# renders all su"se-uent act ons of the court null and vo d for want of author t# to act/ not onl# as to the a"sent %art es "ut even as to those %resent. 1ence/ the tr al court should have ordered the d s! ssal of the co!%la nt. %5, SCRA ,(. A*+*s$ 1, -&&RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS FACTSB 2r vate res%ondent Manuel 5ulawon f led w th the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt a co!%la nt for "reach of contract of lease w th da!ages aga nst %et t oner &ad o 'o!!un cat ons of the 2h l %% nes/ Inc. *&'2I+. 2et t oner f led a !ot on to d s! ss the co!%la nt for lac( of jur sd ct on contend ng that t s the Mun c %al Tr al 'ourt wh ch has jur sd ct on as the co!%la nt s "as call# one for collect on of un%a d rentals.

ISSUEB ,hether or not the &T' has jur sd ct on over the co!%la nt f led "# %r vate res%ondent. HELDB &T' has jur sd ct on over the co!%la nt. The aver!ents n the co!%la nt reveal that the su t f led "# %r vate res%ondent was %r !ar l# one for s%ec f c %erfor!ance as t was a !ed to enforce the r three:#ear lease contract wh ch would nc dentall# ent tle h ! to !onetar# awards f the court should f nd that the su"ject contract of lease was "reached. As alleged there n/ %et t oner0s fa lure to %a# rentals due for the %er od fro! Ganuar# to March 1997/ const tuted a v olat on of the r contract wh ch had the effect of accelerat ng the %a#!ent of !onthl# rentals for the #ears 1997 and 1998. 'learl#/ the act on for s%ec f c %erfor!ance/ rres%ect ve of the a!ount of the rentals and da!ages sought to "e recovered/ s nca%a"le of %ecun ar# est !at on/ hence/ cogn )a"le e@clus vel# "# the &T'.

12

G.R. No. 535(' Se@$e=be6 -', 1'5' NG SOON, @e$9$9one6, vs. HON. ALO/SIUS ALDA/, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ?UE8ON CIT/, BILLIE GAN AND CHINA BAN<ING CORPORATION, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB A sav ngs account was allegedl# !a nta ned w th the 'h na $an( ng 'or%orat on *'$'+ "# 8an $un Iaw/ "oth of who! are res%ondents here n. 2et t oner/ ;g Coon/ cla !s to "e the latter6s w dow. Aor the f l ng of the 'o!%la nt/ %et t oner %a d the su! of 23/633.33 as doc(et fees. &es%ondent $ ll e 8an and the $an(/ res%ect vel#/ !oved for the d s! ssal of the 'o!%la nt. Cu"se-uentl#/ res%ondent 8an/ jo ned "# the $an(/ !oved to e@%unge the sa d 'o!%la nt fro! the record for alleged non:%a#!ent of the re-u red doc(et fees. 5ur ng the %endenc# of th s case/ res%ondent 8an f led a Man festat on alleg ng/ a!ong others/ that %et t oner s an !%ostor and not the real ;g Coon/ w fe of 8an $un Iaw/ s nce the real Mrs. 8an $un Iaw *;g Coon+ d ed. Th s allegat on was/ however/ den ed "# %et t oner. The res%ondent Gudge ssued the -uest oned 7rder grant ng the 9Mot on to <@%unge 'o!%la nt 2et t oner6s Mot on for the recons derat on of the sa d 7rder hav ng "een den ed/ she as(s for ts rev ew/ !ore %ro%erl# for a ,r t of Certiorari. ISSUESB 1. ,hether or not the doctr ne la d down n the Manchester case was ncorrectl# a%%l ed "# res%ondent GudgeF 2. ,hether or not the &es%ondent Gudge acted w th grave a"use of d scret on when he ordered the 'o!%la nt e@%unged fro! the record although %et t oner had %a d the necessar# f l ng fees. . HELDB 1. It s true that Manchester la d down the rule that all 'o!%la nts should s%ec f# the a!ount of da!ages %ra#ed for not onl# n the "od# of the co!%la nt "ut also n the %ra#erF that sa d da!ages shall "e cons dered n the assess!ent of the f l ng fees n an# caseF and that an# %lead ng that fa ls to co!%l# w th such re-u re!ent shall not "e acce%ted nor ad! tted/ or shall/ otherw se/ "e e@%unged fro! the record. The %attern n Manchester to defraud the 8overn!ent of the doc(et fee due/ the ntent not to %a# the sa!e hav ng "een o"v ous not onl# n the f l ng of the or g nal co!%la nt "ut also n the f l ng of the second a!ended co!%la nt/ s %atentl# a"sent n th s case. 2et t oner de!onstrated her w ll ngness to a" de "# the &ules "# %a# ng the assessed doc(et fee of 2 3/633.33. Che had also as(ed the lower 'ourt to nfor! her of the def c enc#/ f an#/ "ut sa d 'ourt d d not heed her %lea. 2. A f nal deter! nat on s st ll to "e !ade "# the 'ourt/ and the fees ult !atel# found to "e %a#a"le w ll e ther "e add t onall# %a d "# the %art# concerned or refunded to h !/ as the case !a# "e.The res%ondent Gudge/ here"# d rected to re nstate ' v l 'ase ;o. J:.2489 for deter! nat on and %ro%er d s%os t on of the res%ect ve cla !s and r ghts of the %art es/ nclud ng the controvers# as to the real dent t# of %et t oner.

G.R. No. L.%)%,- Nove=be6 1', 1'5-

13

MODESTA CALIMLIM AND LAMBERTO MAGALI IN HIS CAPACIT/ AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOMINGO MAGALI, @e$9$9one6s, vs. HON. PEDRO A. RAMIRE8 IN HIS CAPACIT/ AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, BRANCH I, !n2 FRANCISCO RAMOS, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB Gudg!ent for a su! of !one# and a wr t of e@ecut on was rendered n favor of Inde%endent Mercant le 'or%orat on aga nst a certa n Manuel Magal "# the Mun c %al 'ourt of Man la/ The ;ot ce of >ev# !ade on a %arcel of land reg stered n the na!e of 95o! ngo Magal / !arr ed to Modesta 'al !l !9/ s%ec f ed that the sa d lev# was onl# aga nst 9all r ghts/ t tle/ act on/ nterest and %art c %at on of the defendant Manuel Magal over the %arcel of land descr "ed n th s t tle.9 1owever/ when the Cher ff ssued the f nal 5eed of Cale/ t was erroneousl# stated there n that the sale was w th res%ect to 9the %arcel of land descr "ed n th s t tle9 *referr ng to T'T ;o. 9138+ and not onl# over the r ghts and nterest of Manuel Magal n the sa!e. The e@ecut on of the sa d f nal 5eed of Cale was annotated at the "ac( of sa d t tle. 2et t oner Modesta 'al !l !/ surv v ng s%ouse of 5o! ngo Magal / f led a %et t on w th the res%ondent 'ourt/ s tt ng as a cadastral court/ %ra# ng for the cancellat on of T'T ;o. 68.68. An o%%os t on to the sa d %et t on was f led "# Inde%endent Mercant le 'or%orat on. After the %art es su"! tted the r res%ect ve Me!oranda/ the res%ondent 'ourt ssued an 7rder d s! ss ng the %et t on. The here n %et t oners d d not a%%eal the d s! ssal of the %et t on the# f led n >&' &ecord ;o. 39492 for the cancellat on of T'T ;o. 68.68. Instead/ the# f led the co!%la nt n ' v l 'ase ;o. C'':183 %ra# ng for the cancellat on of the conve#ances and sales that had "een !ade w th res%ect to the %ro%ert#/ covered "# T'T ;o. 9138 %rev ousl# reg stered n the na!e of 5o! ngo Magal / here n %r vate res%ondent Aranc sco &a!os who cla !ed to have "ought the %ro%ert# fro! Inde%endent Mercant le 'or%orat on. 2r vate res%ondent Aranc sco &a!os/ however/ fa led to o"ta n a t tle over the %ro%ert# n h s na!e n v ew of the e@ stence of an adverse cla ! annotated on the t tle thereof at the nstance of the here n %et t oners. 2r vate res%ondent Aranc sco &a!os f led a Mot on To 5 s! ss on the ground that the sa!e s "arred "# %r or judge!ent or "# statute of l ! tat ons. &esolv ng the sa d Mot on/ the res%ondent 'ourt/ d s! ssed ' v l 'ase ;o. C'': 183 on the ground of esto%%el "# %r or judg!ent. A Mot on Aor &econs derat on f led "# the %et t oners was den ed "# the res%ondent Gudge. A second Mot on Aor &econs derat on was s ! larl# den ed. ISSUEB The d s! ssal of ' v l 'ase ;o. C'':183 f led "# the here n %et t oners n the res%ondent 'ourt aga nst the %r vate res%ondent s sought to "e annulled and set as de "# th s 2et t on Aor &ev ew 7n 'ert orar . HELDB It s ne ther fa r nor legal to " nd a %art# "# the result of a su t or %roceed ng wh ch was ta(en cogn )ance of n a court wh ch lac(s jur sd ct on over the sa!e rres%ect ve of the attendant c rcu!stances. The e-u ta"le defense of esto%%el re-u res (nowledge or consc ousness of the facts u%on wh ch t s "ased. The sa!e th ng s true w th esto%%el "# conduct wh ch !a# "e asserted onl# when t s shown/ a!ong others/ that the re%resentat on !ust have "een !ade w th (nowledge of the facts and that the %art# to who! t was !ade s gnorant of the truth of the !atter. The ne-u t# of "arr ng the %et t oners fro! v nd cat ng the r r ght over the r %ro%ert# n ' v l 'ase ;o. C'':183 s rendered !ore acute n the face of the und s%uted fact that the %ro%ert# n -uest on ad! ttedl# "elonged to the %et t oners/ and that the t tle n the na!e of the %r vate res%ondent was the result of an error co!! tted "# the 2rov nc al Cher ff n ssu ng the deed of sale n the e@ecut on %roceed ng. The Mot on To 5 s! ss f led "# the %r vate res%ondent n ' v l 'ase ;o. C'':183 shall "e dee!ed den ed and the res%ondent 'ourt s ordered to conduct further %roceed ngs n the case.

14

G.R. No. 1&%-&& A*+*s$ %1, 1'') LA NAVAL DRUG CORPORATION, @e$9$9one6, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS !n2 1ILSON C. /AO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB &es%ondent Iao/ owner of a co!!erc al "u ld ng wh ch s leased to %et t oner under a contract of lease e@ecuted. $ut later the %et t oner and res%ondent Iao d sagreed on the rental rate/ the r d sagree!ent were su"! tted to ar" trat on/ res%ondent Iao a%%o nted 5o! ngo Ala!are)/ Gr. as h s ar" trator/ wh le %et t oner chose Att#. 'as ano Ca" le as ts ar" trator. The conf r!at on of the a%%o nt!ent of Aurel o Tu%ang/ as th rd ar" trator/ was held n a"e#ance "ecause %et t oner nstructed Att#. Ca" le to defer the sa!e unt l ts $oard of 5 rectors could convene and a%%rove Tu%ang6s a%%o nt!ent. &es%ondent Iao %ra#ed that after su!!ar# hear ng to %roceed w th the ar" trat on n accordance w th 'ontract of >ease and the a%%l ca"le %rov s ons of the Ar" trat on law/ "# a%%o nt ng and conf r! ng the a%%o nt!ent of the Th rd Ar" tratorF and that the $oard of Three Ar" trators "e ordered to !!ed atel# convene and resolve the controvers# "efore t. The res%ondent court announced that the two ar" trators chose Mrs. <lo sa &. ;arc so as the th rd ar" trator. And ordered the %art es to su"! t the r %os t on %a%ers on the ssue as to whether or not res%ondent Iao6s cla ! for da!ages !a# "e l t gated u%on n the su!!ar# %roceed ng for enforce!ent of ar" trat on agree!ent. In !ov ng for recons derat on of the sa d 7rder/ %et t oner argued that n C%ec al 'ase ;o. 6324/ the res%ondent court s ts as a s%ec al court e@erc s ng l ! ted jur sd ct on and s not co!%etent to act on res%ondent Iao6s cla ! for da!ages/ wh ch %oses an ssue l t ga"le n an ord nar# c v l act on. $ut the res%ondent court was not %ersuaded "# %et t oner6s su"! ss on. It den ed the !ot on for recons derat on. ,h le the a%%ellate court has agreed w th %et t oner that/ under Cect on 6 of &e%u"l c Act ;o. 876/ a court/ act ng w th n the l ! ts of ts s%ec al jur sd ct on/ !a# n th s case solel# deter! ne the ssue of whether the l t gants should %roceed or not to ar" trat on/ t/ however/ cons dered %et t oner n esto%%el fro! -uest on ng the co!%etence of the court to add t onall# hear and dec de n the su!!ar# %roceed ngs %r vate res%ondent6s cla ! for da!ages/ t *%et t oner+ hav ng tself f led s ! larl# ts own countercla ! w th the court a quo. ISSUESB 1. ,hether or not the court t has jur sd ct on over the %erson 2. ,hether or not the court a -uo has jur sd ct on over the su"ject !atter. HELDB *1+ Gur sd ct on over the %erson !ust "e seasona"l# ra sed/ .e./ that t s %leaded n a !ot on to d s! ss or "# wa# of an aff r!at ve defense n an answer. ?oluntar# a%%earance shall "e dee!ed a wa ver of th s defense. The assert on/ however/ of aff r!at ve defenses shall not "e constructed as an esto%%el or as a wa ver of such defense. *2+ ,here the court tself clearl# has no jur sd ct on over the su"ject !atter or the nature of the act on/ the nvocat on of th s defense !a# "e done at an# t !e. It s ne ther for the courts nor the %art es to v olate or d sregard that rule/ let alone to confer that jur sd ct on/ th s !atter "e ng leg slat ve n character. $arr ng h ghl# !er tor ous and e@ce%t onal c rcu!stances/ such as here n"efore e@e!%l f ed/ ne ther esto%%el nor wa ver shall a%%l#. The court !ust then refra n fro! ta( ng u% the cla !s of the contend ng %art es for da!ages/ wh ch/ u%on the other hand/ !a# "e vent lated n se%arate regular %roceed ngs at an o%%ortune t !e and venue.

1.

G.R. No. 1%55', J*ne -&, -&&& BARANGA/ SAN RO?UE, TALISA/, CEBU, @e$9$9one6, vs. He96s o# FRANCISCO PASTOR n!=e"4B EUGENIO S/LIANCO, TEODORO S/LIANCO, TEODORO S/LIANCO, ISABEL S/LIANCO, EUGENIA S. ONG, LA1RENCE S/LIANCO, LA1SON S/LIANCO, LA1INA S. NOTARIO, LEONARDO S/LIANCO JR. !n2 LA1FORD S/LIANCO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTS: 2et t oner f led "efore the Mun c %al Tr al 'ourt *MT'+ a 'o!%la nt to e@%ro%r ate a %ro%ert# of the res%ondents. In an 7rder the MT' d s! ssed the 'o!%la nt on the ground of lac( of jur sd ct on. It reasoned that 9e! nent do!a n s an e@erc se of the %ower to ta(e %r vate %ro%ert# for %u"l c use after %a#!ent of just co!%ensat on. The &T' also d s! ssed the 'o!%la nt when f led "efore t/ hold ng that an act on for e! nent do!a n affected t tle to real %ro%ert#F hence/ the value of the %ro%ert# to "e e@%ro%r ated/ 'onclud ng that the act on should have "een f led "efore the MT' s nce the value of the su"ject %ro%ert# was less than 223/333. Aggr eved/ %et t oner a%%ealed d rectl# to th s 'ourt/ ra s ng a %ure -uest on of law. In a &esolut on/ the 'ourt den ed the 2et t on for &ev ew 9for "e ng %osted out of t !e on Gul# 2/ 1999/ the due date "e ng Gune 2/ 1999/ as the !ot on for e@tens on of t !e to f le %et t on was den ed n the resolut on of Gul# 14/ 1999.9 7 In a su"se-uent &esolut on dated 7cto"er 6/ 1999/ the 'ourt re nstated the 2et t on.

ISSUEB ,h ch court/ MT' or &T'/ has jur sd ct on over cases for e! nent do!a n or e@%ro%r at on where the assessed value of the su"ject %ro%ert# s "elow Twent# Thousand *223/333.33+ 2esos4 HELDB Jurisdiction over an Expropriation Suit In su%%ort of ts a%%eal/ %et t oner c tes Cect on 19 *1+ of $2 129/ wh ch %rov des that !Cs shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject o# the litigation is incapable o# pecuniary esti$ationF . . . . .9 It argues that the %resent act on nvolves the e@erc se of the r ght to e! nent do!a n/ and that such r ght s nca%a"le of %ecun ar# est !at on. ,e agree w th the %et t oner that an e@%ro%r at on su t s nca%a"le of %ecun ar# est !at on. An e@%ro%r at on su t does not nvolve the recover# of a su! of !one#. &ather/ t deals w th the e@erc se "# the govern!ent of ts author t# and r ght to ta(e %r vate %ro%ert# for %u"l c use. True/ the value of the %ro%ert# to "e e@%ro%r ated s est !ated n !onetar# ter!s/ for the court s dut#:"ound to deter! ne the just co!%ensat on for t. Th s/ however/ s !erel# nc dental to the e@%ro%r at on su t. Indeed/ that a!ount s deter! ned onl# after the court s sat sf ed w th the %ro%r et# of the e@%ro%r at on. In add t on/ The govern!ent does not d s%ute res%ondents6 t tle to or %ossess on of the sa!e. Indeed/ t s not a -uest on of who has a "etter t tle or r ght/ for the govern!ent does not even cla ! that t has a t tle to the %ro%ert#. It !erel# asserts ts nherent sovere gn %ower to 9a%%ro%r ate and control nd v dual %ro%ert# for the %u"l c "enef t/ as the %u"l c necess t#/ conven ence or welfare !a# de!and.9 The &eg onal Tr al 'ourt s d rected to 1<A& the case.

G.R. No. 135-)3. J*ne %&, -&&3

16

MIGUELITO LIMACO, ET AL. VS. SHONAN GA<UEN CHILDRENCS HOUSE PHILIPPINES, INC. FACTSB 2et t oners are the reg stered owners of three %arcels of agr cultural land. The# entered nto a 'ontract of Cale w th res%ondent and agreed that 9 n the event that the %art es here n are una"le to effect the transfer and sale of the sa d %ro%ert es n whole or n %art n favor of the vendees/ all the %a d: n a!ounts shall "e a%%l ed to another s ! lar %ro%ert# also owned "# the vendors n su"st tut on of the a"ove:descr "ed %ro%ert es.9 2ursuant to the contract/ res%ondent cor%orat on %a d the down %a#!ent howeverF t refused to re! t an# !onthl# nstall!ent due to %et t oners6 fa lure to o"ta n a clearance andKor a%%roval of the sale of the su"ject land fro! the 5e%art!ent of Agrar an &efor! *5A&+. &es%ondent de!anded that %et t oners e ther solve the %ro"le! w th the land tenants or su"st tute the lots w th another acce%ta"le/ su ta"le and untenanted land/ %ursuant to the r agree!ent. 2et t oners nfor!ed res%ondent that the# were read# to f nal )e the transact on n accordance w th the legal o% n on of the 5A&. In a letter/ res%ondent nfor!ed %et t oners that the sche!e %ro%osed n the 5A& 7% n on was 9far fro! acce%ta"le.9 &es%ondent offered to %urchase the %ro%ert# on a d rect sale "as s. 2et t oners d d not res%ond to res%ondent hence/ the latter/ through counsel/ re-uested the return of ts down %a#!ent. As %et t oners d d not ac-u esce/ res%ondent f led a co!%la nt for resc ss on w th da!ages w th the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt *&T'+ of Ma(at . As a counter!ove/ %et t oners f led the nstant case for s%ec f c %erfor!ance w th the &T' of >aguna. &es%ondent f led a !ot on to d s! ss on the ground of l t s %endent a. 2et t oners o%%osed contend ng that the nstant co!%la nt for s%ec f c %erfor!ance was served on res%ondent ahead of the serv ce of the co!%la nt for resc ss on on %et t oners. >ater/ however/ res%ondent w thdrew ts !ot on to d s! ss n v ew of the order of the &T' of Ma(at d s! ss ng the co!%la nt for resc ss on. In ts Answer w th 'ountercla !/ res%ondent alleged "# wa# of aff r!at ve defense that 9s%ec f c %erfor!ance s not %oss "le "ecause the res%ondent had alread# "ought another %ro%ert# wh ch s untenanted/ devo d of an# legal co!%l cat ons and now converted fro! agr cultural to non:agr cultural %ur%ose n accordance w th 5A& Ad! n strat ve 7rder. Thereafter/ %et t oners f led a Mot on to , thdraw 'o!%la nt cons der ng res%ondent6s s%ec al defense that s%ec f c %erfor!ance was no longer %oss "le. The# %ra#ed that the r co!%la nt and res%ondent6s countercla ! "e ordered w thdrawn or d s! ssed/ argu ng that res%ondent6s countercla ! would have no leg to stand on as t was co!%ulsor# n nature. ISSUEB ,hether res%ondent6s countercla ! should "e d s! ssed. HELDB There are two wa#s "# wh ch an act on !a# "e d s! ssed u%on the nstance of the %la nt ff. A rst/ d s! ssal s a !atter of r ght when a not ce of d s! ssal s f led "# the %la nt ff "efore an answer or a !ot on for su!!ar# judg!ent has "een served on h ! "# the defendant. Cecond/ d s! ssal s d scret onar# on the court when the !ot on for the d s! ssal of the act on s f led "# the %la nt ff at an# stage of the %roceed ngs other than "efore serv ce of an answer or a !ot on for su!!ar# judg!ent. ,h le the d s! ssal n the f rst !ode ta(es effect u%on the !ere not ce of %la nt ff w thout need of a jud c al order/ the second !ode re-u res the author t# of the court "efore d s! ssal of the case !a# "e effected. Th s s so "ecause n the d s! ssal of an act on/ the effect of the d s! ssal u%on the r ghts of the defendant should alwa#s "e ta(en nto cons derat on. In the case at "ar/ t s und s%uted that %et t oners f led a Mot on to , thdraw 'o!%la nt after res%ondent alread# f led ts answer w th countercla !. In fact/ the reason for the r !ot on for w thdrawal was the s%ec al defense of res%ondent n ts answer that su"st tut on was no longer %oss "le as t alread# "ought another %ro%ert# n l eu of the 17

su"ject lots under the contract. It s/ therefore/ ne@%l ca"le how %et t oners could argue that the r co!%la nt was successfull# w thdrawn u%on the !ere f l ng of a Mot on to , thdraw 'o!%la nt when the# the!selves alleged n th s %et t on that 9%r vate res%ondent o"jected to the w thdrawal and the Tr al 'ourt susta ned the o"ject on.9

G.R. No. 135)&(

J!n*!64 1(, -&&3

FILOMENA DOMAGAS, @e$9$9one6, vs. VIVIAN LA/NO JENSEN, respondent. FACTSB A lo!ena 5o!agas f led a co!%la nt for forc "le entr# aga nst res%ondent ? v an Gensen "efore the MT' of 'alas ao/ 2angas nan. The %et t oner alleged that she was the reg stered owner of a %arcel of land and the res%ondent/ "# !eans of force/ strateg# and stealth/ ga ned entr# nto the %et t oner0s %ro%ert# "# e@cavat ng and construct ng a fence. As such/ the %et t oner was de%r ved of a %ort on of her %ro%ert# along the "oundar# l ne. The %et t oner %ra#ed that/ judg!ent "e rendered n her favor and she further %ra#s for other rel efs and re!ed es just and e-u ta"le n the %re! ses. The su!!ons and the co!%la nt were not served on the res%ondent "ecause the latter was a%%arentl# out of the countr#. Th s was rela#ed to the Cher ff "# her *the res%ondent0s+ "rother/ 7scar >a#no/ who was then n the res%ondent0s house. The Cher ff left the su!!ons and co!%la nt w th 7scar >a#no/ who rece ved the sa!e. The court rendered judg!ent order ng the res%ondent and all %ersons occu%# ng the %ro%ert# for and n the latter0s "ehalf to vacate the d s%uted area and to %a# !onthl# rentals therefore/ nclud ng actual da!ages/ attorne#0s fees/ and e@e!%lar# da!ages. The res%ondent fa led to a%%eal the dec s on. 'onse-uentl#/ a wr t of e@ecut on was ssued. The res%ondent f led a co!%la nt aga nst the %et t oner "efore the &T' of 5agu%an ' t# for the annul!ent of the dec s on of the MT' on the ground that the Cher ff0s fa lure to serve the co!%la nt and su!!ons on her "ecause she was n 7slo/ ;orwa#/ the MT' never ac-u red jur sd ct on over her %erson. The res%ondent alleged there n that the serv ce of the co!%la nt and su!!ons through su"st tuted serv ce on her "rother/ 7scar >a#no/ was !%ro%er. Gudg!ent s rendered n favor of %la nt ff ? v an >a#no Gensen and aga nst defendant A lo!ena 5o!agas. The tr al court declared that there was no val d serv ce of the co!%la nt. The %et t oner a%%ealed the dec s on to the 'A wh ch/ rendered judg!ent aff r! ng the a%%ealed dec s on w th !od f cat ons. The 'A ruled that the co!%la nt n ' v l 'ase ;o. 879 was one for eject!ent/ wh ch s an act on quasi in re$. The su!!ons and the co!%la nt should have "een served via e@traterr tor al serv ce under Cect on 1. n relat on to Cect on 16/ &ule 14 of the &ules of 'ourt. ISSUEB ,hether or not there was a val d serv ce of the su!!ons and co!%la nt n ' v l 'ase ;o. 879 on the res%ondent here n who was the defendant n the sa d case. The resolut on of the !atter s anchored on the ssue of whether or not the act on of the %et t oner n the MT' aga nst the res%ondent here n s an act on n persona$ or quasi in re$% HELDB The res%ondent was not val dl# served w th su!!ons and the co!%la nt n ' v l 'ase ;o. 879 on A%r l ./ 1999/ "# su"st tuted serv ce. 1ence/ the MT' fa led to ac-u re jur sd ct on over the %erson of the res%ondentF as such/ the dec s on of the MT' n ' v l 'ase ;o. 879 s null and vo d.

18

G.R. No. 1-(5(,. DeAe=be6 1(, 1''' RO0AS & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETAR/ OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS !n2 DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, respondents. FACTSB 2et t oner &o@as L 'o. s a do!est c cor%orat on and s the reg stered owner of three hac endas/ na!el#/ 1ac endas 2al co/ $an lad and 'a#lawa#/ all located n the Mun c %al t# of ;asug"u/ $atangas. The events of th s case occurred dur ng the ncu!"enc# of then 2res dent 'ora)on '. A-u no who ssued 2rocla!at on ;o. 3 %ro!ulgat ng a 2rov s onal 'onst tut on. $efore the law0s effect v t#/ %et t oner f led w th res%ondent 5A& a voluntar# offer to sell 1ac enda 'a#lawa# %ursuant to the %rov s ons of <.7. ;o. 229. 1ac endas 2al co and $an lad were later %laced under co!%ulsor# ac-u s t on "# res%ondent 5A& n accordance w th the &e%u"l c Act ;o. 66.7/ the 'o!%rehens ve Agrar an &efor! >aw of 1988*'A&>+. In a letter/ res%ondent 5A& Cecretar# nfor!ed %et t oner that a reclass f cat on of the land would not e@e!%t t fro! agrar an refor!. &es%ondent Cecretar# also den ed %et t oner0s w thdrawal of the ?oluntar# 7ffer to Cell *?7C+ on the ground that w thdrawal could onl# "e "ased on s%ec f c grounds such as unsu ta" l t# of the so l for agr culture/ or f the slo%e of the land s over 18 degrees and that the land s undevelo%ed. 5es% te the den al of the ?7C w thdrawal of 1ac enda 'a#lawa#/ %et t oner f led ts a%%l cat on for convers on of "oth 1ac endas 2al co and $an lad. %et t oner/ through ts 2res dent/ <duardo &o@as/ re terated ts re-uest to w thdraw the ?7C over 1ac enda 'a#lawa# 2et t oner nst tuted 'ase w th res%ondent 5A& Adjud cat on $oard *5A&A$+ %ra# ng for the cancellat on of the '>7A0s ssued "# res%ondent 5A& n the na!e of several %ersons. 2et t oner alleged that the hac endas had "een declared a tour st )one/ s not su ta"le for agr cultural %roduct on. 5A&A$ held that the case nvolved the %rejud c al -uest on of whether the %ro%ert# was su"ject to agrar an refor!/ hence/ th s -uest on should "e su"! tted to the 7ff ce of the Cecretar# of Agrar an &efor! for deter! nat on. 2et t oner f led w th the 'ourt of A%%eals. It -uest oned the e@%ro%r at on of ts %ro%ert es under the 'A&> and the den al of due %rocess n the ac-u s t on of ts landhold ngs. Meanwh le/ the %et t on for convers on of the three hac endas was den ed "# the MA&7. 2et t oner0s %et t on was d s! ssed "# the 'ourt of A%%eals. 2et t oner !oved for recons derat on "ut the !ot on was den ed "# court of A%%eals. ISSUESB ,hether or not the 5A& o"serves due %rocess of the %roceed ngs over the three hac endas HELDB The ac-u s t on %roceed ngs over the three hac endas are null f ed for res%ondent 5A&6s fa lure to o"serve due %rocess there n. In accordance w th the gu del nes set forth n th s dec s on and the a%%l ca"le ad! n strat ve %rocedure/ the case s here"# re!anded to res%ondent 5A& for %ro%er ac-u s t on %roceed ngs and deter! nat on of %et t oner6s a%%l cat on for convers on. fa lure of res%ondent 5A& to co!%l# w th the re-u s tes of due %rocess n the ac-u s t on %roceed ngs does not g ve th s 'ourt the %ower to null f# the '>7A0s alread# ssued to the far!er "enef c ar es. To assu!e the %ower s to short:c rcu t the ad! n strat ve %rocess/ wh ch has #et to run ts regular course. &es%ondent 5A& !ust "e g ven the chance to correct ts %rocedural la%ses n the ac-u s t on %roceed ngs. In 1ac enda 2al co alone/ '>7A6s were ssued to 177 far!er "enef c ar es n 1993. C nce then unt l the %resent/ these far!ers have "een cult vat ng the r lands. It goes aga nst the "as c %rece%ts of just ce/ fa rness and e-u t# to de%r ve these %eo%le/ through no fault of the r own/ of the land the# t ll.

19

G.R. Nos. (''%(.%5 Feb6*!64 1%, 1'5' SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., :SIOL;, E.B. PHILIPPS !n2 D.J. 1ARB/, @e$9$9one6s, vs. HON. MA0IMIANO C. ASUNCION, P6es929n+ J*2+e, B6!nA 1&), Re+9on!" T69!" Co*6$, ?*eDon C9$4 !n2 MANUEL CHUA U/ PO TIONG, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB 2et t oner Cun Insurance 7ff ce/ >td. *CI7> for "rev t#+ f led a co!%la nt w th the &T' of Ma(at / for the cons gnat on of a %re! u! refund on a f re nsurance %ol c# w th a %ra#er for the jud c al declarat on of ts null t# aga nst %r vate res%ondent Manuel =# 2o T ong. 2r vate res%ondent as declared n default for fa lure to f le the re-u red answer w th n the regle!entar# %er od. 7n the other hand/ %r vate res%ondent f led a co!%la nt n the &T' of Jue)on ' t# for the refund of %re! u!s and the ssuance of a wr t of %rel ! nar# attach!ent aga nst %et t oner CI7>/ and nclud ng <.$. 2h l %%s and 5.G. ,ar"# as add t onal defendants. The co!%la nt sought/ the %a#!ent of actual/ co!%ensator#/ !oral/ e@e!%lar# and l -u dated da!ages/ attorne#6s fees/ e@%enses of l t gat on and costs of the su t. Although the %ra#er n the co!%la nt d d not -uant f# the a!ount of da!ages sought sa d a!ount !a# "e nferred fro! the "od# of the co!%la nt to "e a"out A ft# M ll on 2esos *2.3/333/333.33+. 7nl# the a!ount of 2213.33 was %a d "# %r vate res%ondent as doc(et fee wh ch %ro!%ted %et t oners6 counsel to ra se h s o"ject on. Ca d o"ject on was d sregarded "# res%ondent Gudge Gose 2. 'astro who was then %res d ng over sa d case. The 'ourt thereafter returned the sa d records to the tr al court w th the d rect ve that the# "e re:raffled to the other judges to the e@clus on of Gudge 'astro. 'ase was re:raffled to $ranch 134/ a sala wh ch was then vacant. The 'ourt en banc ssued a &esolut on n Ad! n strat ve 'ase d rect ng the judges to reassess the doc(et fees and re-u res all cler(s of court to ssue cert f cates of re: assess!ent of doc(et fees. All l t gants were l (ew se re-u red to s%ec f# n the r %lead ngs the a!ount sought to "e recovered n the r co!%la nts. Gudge Ma@ ! ano '. Asunc on/ to who! ' v l 'ase ;o. J41177 was thereafter ass gned/ after h s assu!%t on/ ssued a Cu%%le!ental 7rder re-u r ng the %art es n the case to co!!ent on the 'ler( of 'ourt6s letter:re%ort s gn f# ng her d ff cult# n co!%l# ng w th the &esolut on of th s 'ourt s nce the %lead ngs f led "# %r vate res%ondent d d not nd cate the e@act a!ount sought to "e recovered. 2et t oners then f led a %et t on for cert orar w th the 'ourt of A%%eals -uest on ng the sa d order of Gudge Asunc on. 'ourt of A%%eals rendered a dec s on rul ng/ a!ong others/ 5en# ng due course to the %et t on n 'A:8.&. C2 ;o. 1/ 3971. nsofar as t see(s annul!ent of the order

ISSUEB ,hether or not a court ac-u res jur sd ct on over a case when the correct and %ro%er doc(et fee has not "een %a d.

HELDB It s not s !%l# the f l ng of the co!%la nt or a%%ro%r ate n t ator# %lead ng/ "ut the %a#!ent of the %rescr "ed doc(et fee/ that vests a tr al court w th jur sd ct on over the su"ject !atter or nature of the act on. ,here the f l ng of the n t ator# %lead ng s not acco!%an ed "# %a#!ent of the doc(et fee/ the court !a# allow %a#!ent of the fee w th n a reasona"le t !e "ut n no case "e#ond the a%%l ca"le %rescr %t ve or regle!entar# %er od. It shall "e the res%ons " l t# of the 'ler( of 'ourt or h s dul# author )ed de%ut# to enforce 23

sa d l en and assess and collect the add t onal fee. The %et t on s 5ICMICC<5 for lac( of !er t. The 'ler( of 'ourt of the court a quo s nstructed to reassess and deter! ne the add t onal f l ng fee that should "e %a d "# %r vate res%ondent cons der ng the total a!ount of the cla ! sought n the or g nal co!%la nt and the su%%le!ental co!%la nt as !a# "e gleaned fro! the allegat ons and the %ra#er thereof and to re-u re %r vate res%ondent to %a# the def c enc#.

G.R. No. 1)(%,'. OA$obe6 -%, -&&% SPOUSES PATRIC< AND RAFAELA JOSE VS. SPOUSES HELEN AND ROMEO BO/ON

FACTSB 2et t oners lodged a co!%la nt for s%ec f c %erfor!ance aga nst res%ondents to co!%el the! to fac l tate the transfer of ownersh % of a %arcel of land su"ject of a controverted sale. The &T' ssued a su!!ons to res%ondents. As %er return of the su!!ons/ su"st tuted serv ce was resorted to "# the %rocess server allegedl# "ecause efforts to serve %ersonall# to re res%ondents fa led. Meanwh le/ %et t oners f led "efore the &T' an e@ %arte !ot on for leave of court to effect su!!ons "# %u"l cat on and the judge ssued an order grant ng the sa!e. The res%ondents were declared n default and as a conse-uence of the declarat on of default/ %et t oners were allowed to su"! t the r ev dence e@%arte. 1elen $o#on/ who was then n =n ted Cates/ was sur%r sed to learn fro! her s ster of the resolut on ssued "# the court. &es%ondents f led an Ad 'autela! !ot on -uest on ng/ a!ong others/ the val d t# of the serv ce of su!!ons effected "# the court a -uo. The court ssued an order den# ng the sa d !ot on on the "as s of the defaulted res%ondent su%%osed loss of stand ng n court. 7nce aga n/ the res%ondents ra sed the ssue of the jur sd ct on of the tr al court v a a !ot on for recons derat on and the sa!e was den ed. The %et t oners !oved for the e@ecut on of the controverted judg!ent wh ch the judge granted. Thereafter/ res%ondents f led "efore the 'A a %et t on for cert orar wh ch held that the tr al court had no author t# to ssue the -uest oned resolut on and orders. ISSUEB ,hether or not su!!ons "# %u"l cat on can val dl# serve n the nstant case. HELDB In general/ courts ac-u re jur sd ct on over the %erson of the defendant "# the serv ce of su!!ons/ such serv ce !a# "e done %ersonal or su"st tuted serv ce/ where the act on s n %ersona! and the defendant s n the 2h l %% nes. 1owever/ e@traterr tor al serv ce of su!!ons or su!!ons "# %u"l cat on a%%l es onl# when the act on s n re! or -uas n re!. That s/ the act on aga nst the th ng tself nstead of aga nst the defendant0s %erson f the act on s n re! or an nd v dual s na!ed as defendant and the %ur%ose s to su"ject the nd v dual0s nterest n a % ece of %ro%ert# to the o"l gat on or loan "urden ng t f -uas n re!. In the nstant case/ what was f led "efore the tr al court was an act on for s%ec f c %erfor!ance d rected aga nst res%ondents. ,h le the su t nc dentall# nvolved a % ece of land/ the ownersh % or %ossess on thereof was not %ut n ssue. Moreover/ court has cons stentl# declared that an act on for s%ec f c %erfor!ance s an act on n %ersona!. 1ence/ su!!ons "# %u"l cat on cannot "e val dl# served.

21

G.R. No. L.-'('1 J!n*!64 1&, 1'(5 FRANCISCO S. HERNANDE8 !n2 JOSEFA U. ATIEN8A, @"!9n$9##s.!@@e""ees, vs. RURAL BAN< OF LUCENA, INC., CENTRAL BAN< OF THE PHILIPPINES, 9n 9$s A!@!A9$4 !s L9H*92!$o6 o# R*6!" B!nE o# L*Aen!, !n2 JOSE S. MARTINE8 9n 9s A!@!A9$4 !s ReAe9ve6 o# R*6!" B!nE o# L*Aen!, 2e#en2!n$s.!@@e""!n$s. FACTSB Th s case s a"out the %ro%r et# of a se%arate act on to co!%el a d stress rural "an( wh ch s under Gud c al l -u dat on/ to acce%t a chec( n %a#!ent of a !ortgage de"t. Aranc sco C. 1ernande) and Gosefa =. At en)a o"ta ned fro! the &ural $an( of >ucena/ Inc. a loan of 26/333 the loan was cured "# a !ortgage on the r two lots s tuated n 'u"ao/ Jue)on ' t#. The nterest for one #ear was %a d n advance. Three !onths after that loan was o"ta ned/ the >ucena $an( "eca!e a d stress "an(/ ts off cers/ d rectors and e!%lo#ees had co!! tted certa n ano!al es or had resorted to unsound and unsafe "an( ng %ract ces wh ch were %rejud c al to the govern!ent/ ts de%os tors and cred tors. $efore the e@% rat on of the one:#ear ter! of the loan/ 1ernande) went to the >ucena "an( and offered to %a# the loan "# !eans of a chec( for 26/333 wh ch was drawn aga nst the "an( "# a de%os tor/ the Can 2a"lo 'olleges/ and wh ch was %a#a"le to Aernande) As the "an(6s e@ecut ve v ce %res dent was not ava la"le/ the %a#!ent was not consu!!ated. The e@ecut ve v ce:%res dent wrote to 1ernande) and nfor!ed h ! that the chec( could not "e honored for the t !e "e ng "ecause of adverse events that had d sru%ted the "an(6s o%erat ons. 1ernande) and h s w fe f led an act on n the 'ourt of A rst Instance at > %a ' t# to co!%el the &ural $an( of >ucena/ Inc./ the 'entral $an( as l -u dator/ and Gose C. Mart ne) as rece ver/ to acce%t the chec( and to e@ecute the cancellat on of the real estate !ortgage. The 1ernande) s%ouses also as(ed for !oral da!ages n the a!ount of P&'%''' and attorne#6s fees of 23/333 the 'entral $an( f led a !ot on to d s! ss. It contended that there was !%ro%er venue. The !ot on was den ed/ t should "e stated that the counsel for the >ucena offered to co!%ro! se the case "# st %ulat ng that the 'entral $an( would a%%l# the chec( n -uest on to the !ortgage de"t of 1ernande) f the "alance of the de%os t of the Can 2a"lo 'olleges would "e enough to cover the a!ount of the chec( of 26/333 and that/ "# v rtue of that co!%ro! se/ the co!%la nt and countercla ! would "e d s! ssed. That cond t onal and e-u vocal co!%ro! se offer f ))led out/ "ecause the law#ers of 1ernande) and the 'entral $an( d d not assent to t the lower court rendered an a!ended dec s on order ng the >ucena $an( or the 'entral $an(/ as l -u dator/ to acce%t the honor the chec(/ to cancel the !ortage/ and to %a# 1ernande) s%ouses *P()*''' as !oral da!ages *not 213/333 as %ra#ed for the co!%la nt+ %lus 21/333 as attorne#6s fees. ISSUEB ,hether or not the se%arate act on to co!%el a d stress rural "an( under jud c al l -u dat on s %ro%er to acce%t the chec( n %a#!ent of a !ortgage de"t. HELDB The case s d s! ssed w thout %rejud ce to the r ght of the 1ernande) s%ouses to ta(e u% w th the l -u dat on court the settle!ent of the r !ortgage o"l gat on. .In the nstant case/ the 1ernande) s%ouses/ after hav ng "eco!e cogn )ant of the fact that the >ucena "an( was under l -u dat on/ chose to f le a se%arate act on aga nst that "an( for rede!%t on and da!ages. Although res dents of 'u"ao/ Jue)on ' t#/ where the !ortgage lots are located and wh ch was the address used "# the! n deal ng w th the >ucena "an(/ the# chose > %a ' t# as the venue of the r act on. 22

The# gnored the l -u dat on court. <v dentl#/ one of the r o"ject ves was to o"ta n aga nst the >ucena "an( a judg!ent for !oral da!ages wh ch the# sur! sed would not "e granted "# the Man la l -u dat on court. The# atta ned !ore than what the# had or g nall# des red "ecause/ nstead of the !oral da!ages of P&'*'' nd cated n the r co!%la nt/ the tr al court generousl# awarded the! P()*'''. 7n the other hand/ the 1ernande) s%ouses argue that the r act on n the 'ourt of A rst Instance at > %a ' t# 9deals w th a su! of !one# wh ch s st ll not n the %ossess on/ custod#/ and ad! n strat on9 of the 'entral $an( and the rece verF that the r act on had 9noth ng to do w th the funds and %ro%ert#9 held "# the rece verF that the >ucena "an( had not lost ts jur d cal %ersonal t# after t was %laced under l -u dat on/ and that the ssue as to whether the >ucena "an( should have acce%ted the choc( n -uest on was 9not n an#wa# connected w th the causes and grounds under wh ch the l -u dat on %roceed ngs were nst tuted nor w th the ad! n strat on of the %ro%ert# and funds under l -u dat on9

G.R. No. 1%(('%. Se@$e=be6 -', 1''' NILO H. RA/MUNDO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, S9>$ D9v9s9on, HON. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS, I P6es929n+ J*2+e, RTC, B6. ,(, P!s9+ C9$4, !n2 JUAN MARCOS ARELLANO, respondents. FACTSB Guan Marcos Arellano/ Gr. f led w th the &T'/ 2as g ' t#/ a co!%la nt aga nst %et t oner for collect on of a su! of !one#/ %et t oner f led h s answer w th countercla ! to the co!%la nt. The tr al court scheduled a %re:tr al conference. It was nonetheless %ost%oned n v ew of %et t oner0s !ot on for leave to f le an a!ended answer. 2et t oner f led w th the tr al court h s a!ended answer w th countercla ! together w th a !an festat on. 2r vate res%ondent f led an o%%os t on to the ad! ss on of the a!ended answer/ to wh ch %et t oner f led a re%l#. The tr al court ssued an order str ( ng out %et t oner0s !an festat on and a!ended answer w th countercla ! for fa lure to co!%l# w th the %rov s ons of Cect on 3/ &ule 13 of the &ules of 'ourt. The tr al court scheduled the %re:tr al conference %et t oner d d not attend the %re: tr al conference scheduled on March ./ 1997. >ater that da#/ %et t oner learned that the tr al court declared h ! n default for non:a%%earance at the %re:tr al conference 2et t oner f led w th the tr al court an urgent !ot on to set as de default order. 5es% te the !ot on/ the tr al court %roceeded to rece ve %r vate res%ondent0s ev dence ex+parte. 2et t oner f led w th the tr al court a !ot on to set as de res%ondent0s ex+parte ev dence. The tr al court/ rendered a dec s on/ n favor of %la nt ff Guan Marco Arellano/ Gr. and aga nst defendant ; lo &a#!undo. 2et t oner f led w th the tr al court a !ot on for recons derat on of the dec s on/ to wh ch %r vate res%ondent f led an o%%os t on. 2et t oner f led w th the tr al court an Dad cautela!E o!n "us %et t on for rel ef fro! judg!ent/ order or other %roceed ngs. The tr al court ssued an order den# ng %et t oner0s !ot on for recons derat on and Dad cautela!E o!n "us %et t on. 2et t oner f led w th the tr al court a not ce of a%%eal to the 'ourt of A%%eals fro! the tr al court0s dec s on/ and the tr al court a%%roved. 2et t oner f led w th the 'ourt of A%%eals a s%ec al c v l act on for certiorari challeng ng the val d t# of the tr al court0s dec s on and other %roceed ngs as hav ng "een rendered w th grave a"use of d scret on. The court of A%%eals %ro!ulgated ts dec s on d s! ss ng the %et t on outr ght rul ng that certiorari l es onl# when there s no a%%eal or an# other %la n/ s%eed# or ade-uate re!ed# ava la"le to %et t oner. Also/ certiorari w ll not ssue to cure errors n %roceed ngs or erroneous conclus ons of law or fact. The 'ourt of A%%eals added that where a%%eal s the %ro%er re!ed#/ certiorari would not l e. The fa lure of the 23

tr al court to resolve %et t oner0s !ot on to set as de default order and !ot on to set as de %r vate res%ondent0s ex+parte ev dence "efore render ng judg!ent s D%urel# errorsKovers ght n the %roceed ngs/ not necessar l# an error of jur sd ct on.E ISSUEB ,hether or not the 'ourt of A%%eals erred n den# ng the ssuance of a wr t of certiorari "ecause of the ava la" l t# of a%%eal. HELDB An ord nar# a%%eal s the %ro%er re!ed# n -uest on ng a judg!ent "# defaultF a%%eal s also the %ro%er re!ed# fro! an order den# ng a %et t on for rel ef of judg!ent. 1ence/ n the nor!al course of events/ the 'ourt of A%%eals correctl# den ed the %et t on for certiorari "efore t/ assa l ng the tr al court0s dec s on "# default and den al of the %et t on for rel ef/ n v ew of the ava la" l t# of a%%eal there fro!. 2ur%ortedl#/ the tr al court declared %et t oner as n default when he fa led to attend the scheduled %re:tr al conference. 2et t oner/ however/ e@%la ned that he d d not attend "ecause he was awa t ng resolut on of h s !ot on to ad! t a!ended answer. Thus/ %et t oner need not attend the %re:tr al conference "ecause the resolut on of h s !ot on to ad! t a!ended answer ta(es %recedence over the %re:tr al conference. The tr al court gravel# a"used ts d scret on n declar ng %et t oner as n default when t was tself re! ss n not resolv ng %et t oner0s %end ng !ot ons. ,orse/ the tr al court acted des%ot call# n allow ng res%ondent to %resent ev dence ex+parte even f %et t oner could not "e lawfull# declared n default for non:a%%earance due to the tr al court0s own fa lure to rule on the ad! ss on of h s a!ended answer "ecause the or g nal answer was on record. More/ n dec d ng the case w thout resolv ng %et t oner0s !ot on to set as de default and !ot on to set as de ex+parte ev dence/ the tr al court e@erc sed ts d scret on ca%r c ousl#/ ar" trar l# and wh !s call#.

G.R. No. 1331(%

Nove=be6 -%, -&&)

LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., :#o6=e6"4 L!#!6+e P 9"9@@9nes, InA.;, LU8ON CONTINENTAL LAND CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL OPERATING CORPORATION !n2 PHILIP ROSEBERG, @e$9$9one6s, vs. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION, GREGOR/ T. LIM !n2 ANTHON/ A. MARIANO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB 7r g ns of the controvers# can "e traced to the >etter of Intent *>7I+ e@ecuted "# "oth %art es/ where"# 2et t oner >afarge 'e!ent 2h l %% nes/ Inc. *>afarge+ :: on "ehalf of ts aff l ates and other -ual f ed ent t es/ nclud ng 2et t oner >u)on 'ont nental >and 'or%orat on *>'>'+ :: agreed to %urchase the ce!ent "us ness of &es%ondent 'ont nental 'e!ent 'or%orat on *'''+. $oth %art es entered nto a Cale and 2urchase Agree!ent *C2A+. At the t !e of the forego ng transact ons/ %et t oners were well aware that ''' had a case %end ng w th the Cu%re!e 'ourt. In ant c %at on of the l a" l t# that the 1 gh Tr "unal ! ght adjudge aga nst '''/ the %art es/ under 'lause 2 *c+ of the C2A/ allegedl# agreed to reta n fro! the %urchase %r ce a %ort on of the contract %r ce n the a!ount of 2117/323/846.84 :: the e-u valent of =CM2/799/143. Th s a!ount was to "e de%os ted n an nterest:"ear ng account n the A rst ;at onal ' t# $an( of ;ew Ior( *' t "an(+ for %a#!ent to A2T/ the %et t oner n 8& ;o. 119712. 1owever/ %et t oners allegedl# refused to a%%l# the su! to the %a#!ent to A2T/ des% te the su"se-uent f nal t# of the 5ec s on n favor of the latter and the re%eated nstruct ons of &es%ondent '''. Aearful that non%a#!ent to A2T would result n the foreclosure/ not just of ts %ro%ert es covered "# the C2A w th >afarge "ut of several other %ro%ert es as well/ ''' f led "efore the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt a 9'o!%la nt w th A%%l cat on for 2rel ! nar# Attach!ent9 aga nst %et t oners. The 'o!%la nt %ra#ed/ that %et t oners "e d rected to %a# the 9A2T &eta ned A!ount9 referred to n 'lause 2 *c+ of the C2A. 24

ISSUESB 1. ,hether or not the &T' gravel# erred n refus ng to rule that &es%ondent ''' has no %ersonal t# to !ove to d s! ss %et t oners6 co!%ulsor# countercla !s on &es%ondents > ! and Mar ano6s "ehalf. 2. ,hether or not the &T' gravel# erred n rul ng. HELDB &% Petitioners, Counterclai$s Co$pulsory The %rocedural rules are founded on %ract cal t# and conven ence. The# are !eant to d scourage du%l c t# and !ult %l c t# of su ts. Th s o"ject ve s negated "# ns st ng :: as the court a -uo has done :: that the co!%ulsor# countercla ! for da!ages "e d s! ssed/ onl# to have t %oss "l# re: f led n a se%arate %roceed ng. More !%ortant/ as we have stated earl er/ &es%ondents > ! and Mar ano are real %art es n nterest to the co!%ulsor# countercla !F t s !%erat ve that the# "e jo ned there n. Cect on 7 of &ule 3 %rov desH 9'o!%ulsor# jo nder of nd s%ensa"le %art es. N 2art es n nterest w thout who! no f nal deter! nat on can "e had of an act on shall "e jo ned e ther as %la nt ffs or defendants.9 Moreover/ n jo n ng > ! and Mar ano n the co!%ulsor# countercla !/ %et t oners are "e ng cons stent w th the sol dar# nature of the l a" l t# alleged there n. (% The Tr al 'ourt s here"# ordered to ta(e cogn )ance of the countercla !s %leaded n %et t oners6 Answer w th 'o!%ulsor# 'ountercla !s and to cause the serv ce of su!!ons on &es%ondents 8regor# T. > ! and Anthon# A. Mar ano. The a!" gu t# n %et t oners6 countercla !s notw thstand ng/ res%ondents6 l a" l t#/ f %roven/ s sol dar#. Th s character )at on f nds "as s n Art cle 1237 of the ' v l 'ode/ wh ch %rov des that o"l gat ons are generall# cons dered jo nt/ e@ce%t when otherw se e@%ressl# stated or when the law or the nature of the o"l gat on re-u res sol dar t#. 1owever/ o"l gat ons ar s ng fro! tort are/ "# the r nature/ alwa#s sol dar#. G.R. No. 1%--,). OA$obe6 5, 1''5J ABRAHAM GEGARE, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, :Fo6=e6 S@eA9!" TKe"#$ D9v9s9on;, HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. -1(, ?UE8ON CIT/, !n2 SPS. MELENCIO !n2 SOTERA C. LAVARES, Respondents. FACTSB As a result of a co!%la nt for recover# of %ossess on and da!ages/ the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt ordered the %et t oner 8egare to turn over the %ossess on of the leased %re! ses and to %a# reasona"le co!%ensat on for ts use and attorne#0s fees. 5 ssat sf ed w th the dec s on/ %et t oner f led a ;ot ce of A%%eal to the 'ourt of A%%eals. 5es% te due not ce/ %et t oner fa led to %a# doc(et fees w th n the g ven regle!entar# %er od of f fteen *1.+ da#s. 'onse-uentl#/ the 'ourt of A%%eals d s! ssed the a%%eal hold ng that for fa lure to %a# doc(et fees/ the sa d a%%eal was dee!ed a"andoned/ hence/ d s! ssal s %ro%er. ISSUEB ,hether or not the d s! ssal of the a%%eal for fa lure to %a# doc(et fees s %ro%er. HELDB The d s! ssal s %ro%er. It has cons stentl# "een held that %a#!ent n full of doc(et fees w th n the %rescr "ed %er od s !andator# for such %a#!ent s an essent al re-u re!ent "efore the court could ac-u re jur sd ct on over a case. =nder Cect on 1*c+ of &ule .3 of the &ev sed &ules of 'ourt/ a!ong the grounds for d s! ssal of a%%eal "# the 'ourt of A%%eals 2.

s the fa lure of the a%%ellant to %a# the doc(et and other lawful fees as %rov ded n Cect on . of &ule 43 and Cect on 4 of &ule 41 thereof.

G.R. No. 111-,(. Se@$e=be6 -&, 1'', COLUMBIA PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MGM ENTERTAINMENT CO., ORION PICTURES CORPORATION, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., UNIVERSAL CIT/ STUDIOS, INC., THE 1ALT DISNE/ COMPAN/ !n2 1ARNER BROTHERS, INC., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 1)TH DIVISION !n2 JOSE B. JINGCO o# SHO1TIME ENTERPRISES., INC., respondents. FACTSB Alfredo 8. &a!os/ ntell gence off cer of the ? deogra! &egulator# $oard *?&$+/ rece ved nfor!at on that %r vate res%ondent Gose $. G nco had n h s %ossess on % rated v deota%es/ %osters/ advert s ng !ater als and other te!s used or ntended to "e used for the %ur%ose of sale/ lease/ d str "ut on/ c rculat on or %u"l c e@h " t on of the sa d % rated v deota%es. &a!os ascerta ned the nfor!at on to "e true and f led a ver f ed A%%l cat on for Cearch ,arrant w th %ra#er for the se )ure of the %ro%ert es descr "ed n the search warrant. 1ear ng was conducted "# Gudge Alorent no A. Alor of the &T' of 2as g/ where n &a!os and h s two w tnesses/ Anal e G !ene) and &e"ecca $en te):'ru) test f ed on the need for the ssuance of search warrant. The %ra#er for the ssuance of the search warrant was granted and/ on the sa!e date/ Cearch ,arrant was ssued. ISSUEB 1. ,hether or not %et t oners have the legal %ersonal t# and stand ng to f le the a%%eal. 2. ,hether or not the search warrant s val d. HELDB 1. Aro! the records t s clear that/ as co!%la nants/ %et t oners were nvolved n the %roceed ngs wh ch led to the ssuance of Cearch ,arrant ;o. 23. In 2eo%le v. ;ano/ the 'ourt declared that wh le the general rule s that t s onl# the Col c tor 8eneral who s author )ed to "r ng or defend act ons on "ehalf of the 2eo%le or the &e%u"l c of the 2h l %% nes once the case s "rought "efore th s 'ourt or the 'ourt of A%%eals/ f there a%%ears to "e grave error co!! tted "# the judge or a lac( of due %rocess/ the %et t on w ll "e dee!ed f led "# the %r vate co!%la nants there n as f t were f led "# the Col c tor 8eneral. In l ne w th th s rul ng/ the 'ourt g ves th s %et t on due course and w ll allow %et t oners to argue the r case aga nst the -uest oned order n l eu of the Col c tor 8eneral. 2. ,hether or not the Cearch ,arrant ;o. 23 s val d/ 9To "e val d/ a search warrant !ust "e su%%orted "# %ro"a"le cause to "e deter! ned "# the judge or so!e other author )ed off cer after e@a! n ng the co!%la nant and the w tnesses he !a# %roduce. ;o less !%ortant/ there !ust "e a s%ec f c descr %t on of the %lace to "e searched and the th ngs to "e se )ed/ to %revent ar" trar# and nd scr ! nate use of the warrant. 'learl#/ the te!s se )ed could not "e an#!ore s%ec f c as the c rcu!stances w ll allow s nce the# are all used or ntended to "e used n the unlawful sale or lease of % rated ta%es. Therefore/ the f nd ng of the a%%ellate court that Cearch ,arrant ;o. 23 s a 9general9 warrant s devo d of "as s. ,herefore the assa led dec s on and resolut on of res%ondent 'ourt of A%%eals/ and necessar l# nclus ve of the order of the tr al court/ are here"# &<?<&C<5 and C<T ACI5<. The order of the tr al court

26

dated Gul# 28/ 1986 u%hold ng the val d t# of Cearch ,arrant ;o. 23 s here"# &<I;CTAT<5.

G.R. No. 111,53. A*+*s$ -&, -&&1 DAVAO LIGHT & PO1ER CO., INC., petitioner, Vs THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RODOLFO M. BELLAFLOR, P6es929n+ J*2+e o# B6!nA 11, RTC.Ceb* !n2 FRANCISCO TESORERO, respondents. FACTSB 5avao > ght L 2ower 'o./ Inc. f led a co!%la nt for da!ages aga nst %r vate res%ondent Aranc sco Tesorero "efore the & T '/ the co!%la nt %ra#ed for da!ages n the a!ount of 211/333/333.33. In l eu of an answer/ %r vate res%ondent f led a !ot on to d s! ss cla ! ng thatH *a+ the co!%la nt d d not state a cause of act onF *"+ the %la nt ff0s cla ! has "een e@t ngu shed or otherw se rendered !oot and acade! cF *c+ there was non: jo nder of nd s%ensa"le %art esF and *d+ venue was !%ro%erl# la d. 7f these four *4+ grounds/ the last !ent oned s !ost !ater al n th s case at "ar. The tr al court ssued a &esolut on d s! ss ng %et t oner0s co!%la nt on the ground of !%ro%er venue. The %la nt ff "e ng a %r vate cor%orat on undou"tedl# $an lad/ 'e"u ' t# s the %la nt ff0s %r nc %al %lace of "us ness as alleged n the co!%la nt and wh ch for %ur%oses of venue s cons dered as ts res dence. 1owever/ n defendant0s !ot on to d s! ss/ t s alleged and su"! tted that the %r nc %al off ce of %la nt ff n 5avao ' t#/ was "orne out "# the 'ontract of >ease and another 'ontract of >ease of 8enerat ng <-u %!ent e@ecuted "# the %la nt ff w th the ;A27'7&. The !ot on on the ground of !%ro%er venue s granted. 2et t oner0s !ot on for recons derat on was den ed. 'ourt of A%%eals rendered the assa led judg!ent den# ng due course and d s! ss ng the %et t on. 2et t oner f led the nstant %et t on. ISSUEB ,hether or not the venue was %ro%er. HELDB It s %r vate res%ondent0s content on that the %ro%er venue s 5avao ' t#/ and not 'e"u ' t# where %et t oner f led. 2r vate res%ondent argues that %et t oner s esto%%ed fro! cla ! ng that ts res dence s n 'e"u ' t#/ n v ew of contrad ctor# state!ents !ade "# %et t oner %r or to the f l ng of the act on for da!ages. It cannot "e d s%uted that %et t oner0s %r nc %al off ce s n 'e"u ' t#/ %er ts a!ended art cles of ncor%orat on and "#:laws. 2r vate res%ondent s not a %art# to an# of the contracts %resented. 1e s a co!%lete stranger to the covenants e@ecuted "etween %et t oner and ;A27'7&/ des% te h s %rotestat ons that he s %r v# thereto/ on the rather fl !s# ground that he s a !e!"er of the %u"l c for whose "enef t the electr c generat ng e-u %!ent su"ject of the contracts were leased or ac-u red. ,e are l (ew se not %ersuaded "# h s argu!ent that the allegat on or re%resentat on !ade "# %et t oner n e ther the co!%la nts or answers t f led n several c v l cases that ts res dence s n 5avao ' t# should esto%% t fro! f l ng the da!age su t "efore the 'e"u courts. $es des there s no show ng that %r vate res%ondent s a %art# n those c v l cases or that he relied on such re%resentat on "# %et t oner.

G.R. No. 13)1-(. DeAe=be6 5, -&&% ROMEO C. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. 27

DIONISIO V. LLAMAS, respondent. FACTSB DThe case s a co!%la nt for su! of !one# and da!ages "# 5 on s o >la!as aga nst &o!eo 8arc a and <duardo de Gesus. 2et t oner and de Gesus "orrowed 2433/333.33 fro! res%ondent/ the# e@ecuted a %ro! ssor# note where n the# "ound the!selves jo ntl# and severall# to %a# the loan w th a .O nterest %er !onthF The loan has long "een overdue and/ des% te re%eated de!ands/ P%et t oner and de GesusQ have fa led and refused to %a# tF and that/ "# reason of the r unjust f ed refusal/ Pres%ondentQ was co!%elled to engage the serv ces of counsel to who! he agreed to %a# 2.O of the su! to "e recovered fro! P%et t oner and de GesusQ/ %lus 22/333.33 for ever# a%%earance n court. D2et t oner 8arc a/ n h s Answer/ averred that he assu!ed no l a" l t# under the %ro! ssor# note "ecause he s gned t as an acco!!odat on %art#F and/ s rel eved fro! an# l a" l t# as the loan had "een %a d "# de Gesus "# !eans of a chec(F and that/ the ssuance of the chec( and Pres%ondent0sQ acce%tance thereof novated or su%erseded the note. D&es%ondent tendered a re%l# to P2et t onerQ 8arc a0s answer/ thereunder assert ng that the loan re!a ned un%a d for the reason that the chec( ssued "# de Gesus "ounced. *&T'+ rendered n favor of Pres%ondentQ and aga nst P%et t oner and 5e GesusQ/ who are here"# ordered to %a#/ jo ntl# and severall#. The 'A ruled that the tr al court had erred when t rendered a judg!ent on the %lead ngs aga nst 5e Gesus. Accord ng to the a%%ellate court/ h s Answer ra sed genu nel# content ous ssues. Thus/ res%ondent was not ipso #acto ent tled to the &T' judg!ent/ even though 5e Gesus had "een declared n default. ISSUESB 1.+ ,hether there was novat on of the o"l gat onF 2.+ ,hether the defense that %et t oner was onl# an acco!!odat on %art# had an# "as sF 3.+ ,hether the judg!ent aga nst h ! :: "e t a judg!ent on the %lead ngs or a su!!ar# judg!ent :: was %ro%er. HELDB &% -ovation The chec( could not have e@t ngu shed the o"l gat on/ "ecause t "ounced u%on %resent!ent. $# law/ the del ver# of a chec( %roduces the effect of %a#!ent onl# when t s encashed. ;o novat on too( %lace. The %art es d d not une-u vocall# declare that the old o"l gat on had "een e@t ngu shed "# the ssuance and the acce%tance of the chec(/ or that the chec( would ta(e the %lace of the note. There s no nco!%at " l t# "etween the %ro! ssor# note and the chec(. As the 'A correctl# o"served/ the chec( had "een ssued %rec sel# to answer for the o"l gat on. More !%ortant/ 5e Gesus was not a th rd %erson to the o"l gat on. Aro! the "eg nn ng/ he was a jo nt and sol dar# o"l gor of the 2433/333 loanF thus/ he can "e released fro! t onl# u%on ts e@t ngu sh!ent. &es%ondent0s acce%tance of h s chec( d d not change the %erson of the de"tor/ "ecause a jo nt and sol dar# o"l gor s re-u red to %a# the ent ret# of the o"l gat on. ;ovat on cannot "e %resu!ed. It !ust "e clearl# shown e ther "# the e@%ress assent of the %art es or "# the co!%lete nco!%at " l t# "etween the old and the new agree!ents. 2et t oner here n fa ls to show e ther re-u re!ent conv nc ngl#F hence/ the su!!ar# judg!ent hold ng h ! l a"le as a jo nt and sol dar# de"tor stands. It !ust "e noted that n a sol dar# o"l gat on/ the cred tor s ent tled to de!and the sat sfact on of the whole o"l gat on fro! an# or all of the de"tors.

28

2. Acco!!odat on 2art# 2et t oner avers that he s gned the %ro! ssor# note !erel# as an acco!!odat on %art#F and that/ as such/ he was released as o"l gor when res%ondent agreed to e@tend the ter! of the o"l gat on. Th s reason ng s ! s%laced/ "ecause the note here n s not a negot a"le nstru!ent. The note was !ade %a#a"le to a s%ec f c %erson rather than to "earer or to order :: a re-u s te for negot a" l t# under Act 2331/ the ;egot a"le Instru!ents >aw *;I>+. 1ence/ %et t oner cannot ava l h !self of the ;I>0s %rov s ons on the l a" l t es and defenses of an acco!!odat on %art#. The %ro! ssor# note s thus covered "# the general %rov s ons of the ' v l 'ode/ not "# the ;I> ;egot a"le Instru!ents >aw *;I>+. . 3. 2ro%r et# of Cu!!ar# Gudg!ent or Gudg!ent on the 2lead ngs Aro! the records/ t also a%%ears that %et t oner h !self !oved to su"! t the case for judg!ent on the "as s of the %lead ngs and docu!ents. In a wr tten Man festat on/ he stated that Djudg!ent on the %lead ngs !a# now "e rendered w thout further ev dence/ cons der ng the allegat ons and ad! ss ons of the %art es.E The 'A correctl# cons dered as a su!!ar# judg!ent that wh ch the tr al court had ssued aga nst %et t oner.

G.R. No. 1,&-)-

M!4 1(, -&&3

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, @e$9$9one6, vs. COURT OF APPEALS !n2 MONAR< E?UIPMENT CORPORATION, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB Monar( <-u %!ent 'or%orat on *M<'+ f led a 'o!%la nt for a su! of !one# w th da!ages aga nst the As an 'onstruct on and 5evelo%!ent 'or%orat on *A'5'+ w th the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt *&T'+. The co!%la nt alleged the A'5' leased 'ater% llar generator sets and A! da !o" le floodl ght ng s#ste!s fro! M<' "ut fa led/ des% te de!ands/ to %a# the rentalsF var ous e-u %!ents fro! M<' were/ leased "# A'5' for the latter0s %ower %lant n Mau"an/ Jue)on/ and that there was st ll a "alance of 24.6/666.67F and A'5' also %urchased and too( custod# of var ous e-u %!ent %arts fro! M<' for the agreed %r ce of 2237/336.23 wh ch/ des% te de!ands/ A'5' fa led to %a#. M<' %ra#ed that judg!ent "e rendered n ts favor/A'5' f led a !ot on to f le and ad! t answer w th th rd:%art# co!%la nt aga nst $ecthel 7verseas 'or%orat on *$ecthel+. A'5' ad! tted ts nde"tedness to M<' "ut alleged s%ec al and aff r!at ve defensesH A'5' %ra#ed that judg!ent "e rendered n ts favor d s! ss ng the co!%la nt and order ng the th rd:%art# defendant *$ecthel+ to %a# 24.6/666.67 %lus nterest thereon and attorne#0s fees. M<' o%%osed the !ot on of A'5' to f le a th rd:%art# co!%la nt aga nst $ecthel on the ground that the defendant had alread# ad! tted ts %r nc %al o"l gat on to M<' n the a!ount of 2./371/33..86F the transact on "etween t and A'5'/ on the one hand/ and "etween A'5' and $ecthel/ on the other/ were nde%endent transact ons. Aurther!ore/ the allowance of the th rd:%art# co!%la nt would result n undue dela#s n the d s%os t on of the case. ISSUESB I. ,1<T1<& 7& ;7T A T1I&5:2A&TI '7M2>AI;T IC 2&72<&F A;5 II. ,1<T1<& 7& ;7T G=58M<;T 7; T1< 2><A5I;8C IC 2&72<&.

HELDB As alleged n the Answer w th Th rd:2art# 'o!%la nt/ t s ad! tted then "# res%ondent/ for %ur%oses of judg!ent on the %lead ngs/ that fa lure to %a# res%ondent was 29

n connect on of $ecthel 7verseas 'or%orat on0s and that the e-u %!ent leased was used n connect on w th the $ecthel 7verseas 'or%orat on %roject. Th s tendered ssue could not just "e d sregarded n the l ght of the th rd:%art# co!%la nt f led "# here n %et t oner and th rd:%art# %la nt ff wh ch/ as argued n the f rst d scuss onKargu!ent/ s %ro%er and should have "een g ven due course. All the r ghts of the %art es concerned would then "e adjud cated n one %roceed ng. Th s s a rule of %rocedure and does not create a su"stant al r ght. ;e ther does t a"r dge/ enlarge/ or null f# the su"stant al r ghts of an# l t gant. Th s r ght to f le a th rd:%art# co!%la nt aga nst a th rd:%art# rests n the d scret on of the tr al court. The th rd:%art# co!%la nt s actuall# nde%endent of/ se%arate and d st nct fro! the %la nt ff0s co!%la nt/ such that were t not for the rule/ t would have to "e f led se%aratel# fro! the or g nal co!%la nt. 'ons der ng that the %et t oner ad! tted ts l a" l t# for the %r nc %al cla ! of the res%ondent n ts Answer w th Th rd:2art# 'o!%la nt/ the tr al court d d not err n render ng judg!ent on the %lead ngs aga nst t. G.R. No. 13%5,( Feb6*!64 1(, -&&3

1OOD TECHNOLOG/ CORPORATION :1TC;, CHI TIM CORDOVA AND ROBERT TIONG <ING /OUNG, @e$9$9one6s, vs. E?UITABLE BAN<ING CORPORATION, Res@on2en$ FACTSB ,T' o"ta ned fro! res%ondent a loan n the a!ount of =CM7./333/ w th 8.7.O nterest %er annu!/ as ev denced "# a 2ro! ssor# ;ote/ s gned "# 'ordova and Ioung as re%resentat ves of ,T'. 'ordova and Ioung e@ecuted a Curet# Agree!ent " nd ng the!selves as suret es of ,T' for the loan. &es%ondent "an( !ade a f nal de!and for ,T' to %a# ts o"l gat on/ "ut %et t oners fa led to %a#. &es%ondent %ra#ed that %et t oners "e ordered to %a# t M7./633.6. or 22/318/617.46 %lus nterest/ %enalt#/ attorne#0s fees and other e@%enses of l t gat onF and the cost of su t. In the r Answer/ %et t oners stated that ,T' o"ta ned the M7./333 loanF that 'ordova and Ioung "ound the!selves as ts suret es. The# cla !ed that onl# one de!and letter/ dated was !ade "# res%ondent. The# added that the %ro! ssor# note d d not %rov de the due date for %a#!ent. 2et t oners also cla !ed that the loan had not #et !atured as the !atur t# date was %ur%osel# left "lan(/ to "e agreed u%on "# the %art es at a later date. C nce no !atur t# date had "een f @ed/ the f l ng of the 'o!%la nt was %re!ature/ and t fa led to state a cause of act on. The# further cla !ed that the %ro! ssor# note and suret# agree!ent were contracts of adhes on w th ter!s on nterest/ %enalt#/ charges and attorne#0s fees that were e@cess ve/ unconsc ona"le and not reflect ve of the %art es0 real ntent. 2et t oners %ra#ed for the refor!at on of the %ro! ssor# note and suret# agree!ent to !a(e the r ter!s and cond t ons fa r/ just and reasona"le. The# also as(ed %a#!ent of da!ages "# res%ondent. The &T'/ rendered dec s on that the judg!ent s rendered "ased on the %lead ngs f led "# the o%%os ng %art es and the docu!ents anne@ed thereto. The defendants are ordered to %a# sol dar l# and to %a# the st %ulated nterest of 8.7.O %er annu! to "e rec(oned fro! the date that the o"l gat on was contracted unt l the f l ng of th s su t. Thereafter/ the legal rate shall a%%l#. 2et t oners a%%ealed/ "ut the 'ourt of A%%eals aff r!ed the &T'0s judg!ent. The a%%ellate court also den ed %et t oners0 !ot on for recons derat on.

ISSUEB ,hether the a%%ellate court erred when t aff r!ed the &T'0s judg!ent on the %lead ngs.

33

HELDB 2et t oners argue that a judg!ent on the %lead ngs cannot "e rendered "ecause the r Answer tendered genu ne ssues and d s%uted the !ater al allegat ons n the 'o!%la nt. In th s case/ at ssue s the %ro%r et# and val d t# of a judg!ent on the %lead ngs. $oth the &T' and 'ourt of A%%eals recogn )e that ssues were ra sed "# %et t oners n the r Answer "efore the tr al court. The essent al -uest on n such a case s whether there are ssues generated "# the %lead ngs. Th s s the d st nct on "etween a %ro%er case of su!!ar# judg!ent/ co!%ared to a %ro%er case for judg!ent on the %lead ngs. In su!/ no cause to d stur" the f nd ngs of fact the 'ourt of A%%eals/ aff r! ng those of the &T' as to the reasona"leness of the nterest rate of 8.7.O %er annu! on the loan. ;o %ersuas ve reason to contrad ct the rul ng of "oth courts that the loan secured "# %et t oner ,T'/ w th co:%et t oners as suret es/ was %a#a"le on de!and. &es%ondent0s co!%la nt could not "e cons dered %re!ature. ;or could t "e sa d to "e w thout suff c ent cause of act on there n set forth. The judg!ent rendered "# the tr al court s val d as a su!!ar# judg!ent/ and ts aff r!ance "# the 'ourt of A%%eals. G.R. No. 1,,%5% OA$obe6 1,, -&&'

ASSOCIATED BAN<, Pe$9$9one6, vs. SPOUSES JUSTINIANO S. MONTANO, SR., AND LIGA/A MONTANO !n2 TRES CRUCES AGRO.INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Res@on2en$s. FACTSB C%ouses Gust n ano and > ga#a Montano *the Montanos+ owned three *3+ %arcels of land s tuated n 'av te. Gust n ano was then serv ng as congress!an for the lone d str ct of 'av te and as ! nor t# floor leader. ,hen the countr# was under !art al law/ Gust n ano went to the =n ted Ctates of A!er ca *=CA+ to avo d the harass!ent and threats !ade aga nst h ! "# the d ctator. ,h le st ll n the =CA/ the Montanos transferred the sa d %ro%ert es to Tres 'ruces Agro:Industr al 'or%orat on *T'AI'+ n e@change for shares of stoc( n the co!%an#/ allow ng the Montanos to control 98O of the stoc(hold ngs of T'AI'. Thus/ on the cert f cates of t tle reg stered n the na!e of the Montanos were cancelled and were re%laced w th transfer cert f cates of t tle *T'Ts+ n T'AI'0s na!e. A #ear later/ T'AI' sold the %ro%ert es to Internat onal 'ountr# 'lu"/ Inc. *I''I+ for 26/333/333.33. The sale resulted n the cancellat on of the t tles of T'AI'/ and n the r transfer to I''I. I''I !!ed atel# !ortgaged the %arcels of land to ' t )ens $an( and Trust 'o. *later rena!ed as Assoc ated $an(+ for 22/333/333.33.The loan !atured "ut re!a ned un%a d/ %ro!%t ng Assoc ated $an( to foreclose the !ortgage. The %ro%ert es were then %ut on %u"l c auct on and were sold for 2./733/333.33 to Assoc ated $an(/ the sole and h ghest " dder. 7wnersh % over the sa d %ro%ert es was consol dated "# Assoc ated $an( and/ new T'Ts were ssued n ts na!e. Montanos returned to the countr#. After d scover ng the transfer of the %ro%ert es/ the Montanos !!ed atel# too( %h#s cal %ossess on of the sa!e and "egan cult vat ng the land. Montanos f led an act on for reconve#ance of t tle aga nst here n %et t oner/ %ra# ng/ n su!/ that the transfer of the %ro%ert es fro! T'AI' to I''I/ and fro! I''I to Assoc ated $an(/ "e declared null and vo d. ISSUESB 1. ,hether t s %ro%er to f le a !ot on to d s! ss after an answer has alread# "een f ledF 2. ,hether the co!%la nt should "e d s! ssed on the grounds set forth there n. HELDB 1. 7n the %ro%r et# of the !ot on to d s! ss 31

It s/ therefore/ nconse-uent al that %et t oner had alread# f led an answer to the co!%la nt %r or to ts f l ng of a !ot on to d s! ss. The o%t on of whether to set the case for %rel ! nar# hear ng after the f l ng of an answer wh ch ra ses aff r!at ve defenses/ or to f le a !ot on to d s! ss ra s ng an# of the grounds set forth n Cect on 1/ &ule 16 of the &ules are %rocedural o%t ons wh ch are not !utuall# e@clus ve of each other. Moreover/ as %et t oner correctl# %o nted out/ res%ondents fa led to o%%ose the !ot on to d s! ss des% te hav ng "een g ven the o%%ortun t# to do so "# the &T'. Therefore/ an# r ght to contest the sa!e was alread# wa ved "# the!. 2. 7n whether the co!%la nt for reconve#ance should "e d s! ssed In the r co!%la nt for reconve#ance/ res%ondents alleged that the transfer of the three %arcels of land fro! T'AI' to I''I was fac l tated through threat/ duress and nt ! dat on e!%lo#ed "# certa n nd v duals. 7n ts face/ the co!%la nt clearl# states a cause of act on and ra ses ssues of fact that can "e %ro%erl# settled onl# after a full:"lown tr al. 7n th s ground/ %et t oner0s !ot on to d s! ss !ust/ %erforce/ "e den ed. 1owever/ the &T'0s rul ng that the act on has alread# %rescr "ed was not correct. The &T'/ however/ see!ed to have overloo(ed the fact that the "as s of res%ondents0 co!%la nt for reconve#ance s not fraud "ut threat/ duress and nt ! dat on/ allegedl# e!%lo#ed "# Marcos0 cron es u%on the relat ves of the Montanos wh le the latter were on self:e@ le. In fact/ fraud was ne ther s%ec f call# alleged nor re!otel# !%l ed n the co!%la nt. The four:#ear %rescr %t ve %er od !ust/ "e rec(oned fro! the sa d date. Thus/ when res%ondents f led the r co!%la nt for reconve#ance on Ce%te!"er 1./ 1989/ the %er od %rov ded for "# law had not #et %rescr "ed. Therefore/ %et t oner0s !ot on to d s! ss should "e den ed.

G.R. No. 1(--)- A*+*s$ 1), -&&( PER<IN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD., Pe$9$9one6, . versus . DA<ILA TRADING CORPORATION, Res@on2en$. FACTSB 2et t oner s a cor%orat on under C nga%ore. &es%ondent s a cor%orat on organ )ed and e@ st ng under 2h l %% ne laws/ for sell ng L leas ng la"orator# nstru!ents. &es%ondent entered nto an agree!ent w th the 2er( nN<l!er Instru!ents As a 2T< >T5 a%%o nted res%ondent as sole d str "utor of ts %roduct under a 5 str "ut on Agree!ent. 1owever the 2<IA un laterall# ter! nated the d str "ut on agree!ent. The res%ondent f led a co!%la nt for collect on of su! of !one# and da!ages. The &eg onal Tr al 'ourt den ed the res%ondents %ra#er. 2et t oner a%%ealed/ "ut the 'ourt 7f A%%eals aff r!s the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt0s dec s on. ISSUESH 1. ,hether or not there s a %ro%er serv ce of su!!ons and ac-u s t on of jur sd ct on. 2. ,hether or not t s a %ro%er venue for res%ondents c v l case. HELDB 1. The %ro%er serv ce of su!!ons d ffers de%end ng on the nature of the c v l case nst tuted "# the %la nt ff or %et t onerH whether t s in persona$/ in re$/ or quasi in re$. ,hen the case nst tuted s an act on in re$ or quasi in re$/ 2h l %% ne courts alread# have jur sd ct on to hear and dec de the case "ecause/ n act ons in re$ and quasi in re$/ jur sd ct on over the %erson of the defendant s not a %rere-u s te to confer jur sd ct on on the court/ %rov ded that the court ac-u res jur sd ct on over the

32

res. Thus/ n such nstance/ e@traterr tor al serv ce of su!!ons can "e !ade u%on the defendant. The sa d e@traterr tor al serv ce of su!!ons s not for the %ur%ose of vest ng the court w th jur sd ct on/ "ut for co!%l# ng w th the re-u re!ents of fa r %la# or due %rocess/ so that the defendant w ll "e nfor!ed of the %endenc# of the act on aga nst h ! and the %oss " l t# that %ro%ert# n the 2h l %% nes "elong ng to h ! or n wh ch he has an nterest !a# "e su"jected to a judg!ent n favor of the %la nt ff/ and he can there"# ta(e ste%s to %rotect h s nterest f he s so ! nded. There was no %ro%er serv ce of su!!ons/ "ecause the terr tor al serv ce of su!!ons was not %ro%er for act on n %ersona! and the attach!ent of the %ro%ert# does not const tutes or even convert t nto -uas n re!. 2. It s %ro%er venue for c v l case "ase on 5 str "ut on Agree!ent t was st %ulated that f d s%ute ar ses t w ll "e resolved e ther n C nga%ore or n the 2h l %% nes.

G.R. No. 135-)3

J*ne %&, -&&3

MIGUELITO B. LIMACO, ROGELIO LIMACO, JR., !n2 ISIDRO LIMACO, @e$9$9one6s, vs. SHONAN GA<UEN CHILDRENCS HOUSE PHILIPPINES, INC., 6es@on2en$. FACTSB 2et t oners are the reg stered owners of three %arcels of agr cultural land. The# entered nto a 'ontract of Cale w th res%ondent and agreed that 9 n the event that the %art es here n are una"le to effect the transfer and sale of the sa d %ro%ert es n whole or n %art n favor of the vendees/ all the %a d: n a!ounts shall "e a%%l ed to another s ! lar %ro%ert# also owned "# the vendors n su"st tut on of the a"ove:descr "ed %ro%ert es.9 2ursuant to the contract/ res%ondent cor%orat on %a d the down %a#!ent howeverF t refused to re! t an# !onthl# nstall!ent due to %et t oners6 fa lure to o"ta n a clearance andKor a%%roval of the sale of the su"ject land fro! the 5e%art!ent of Agrar an &efor! *5A&+. &es%ondent de!anded that %et t oners e ther solve the %ro"le! w th the land tenants or su"st tute the lots w th another acce%ta"le/ su ta"le and untenanted land/ %ursuant to the r agree!ent. 2et t oners nfor!ed res%ondent that the# were read# to f nal )e the transact on n accordance w th the legal o% n on of the 5A&. In a letter/ res%ondent nfor!ed %et t oners that the sche!e %ro%osed n the 5A& 7% n on was 9far fro! acce%ta"le.9 &es%ondent offered to %urchase the %ro%ert# on a d rect sale "as s. 2et t oners d d not res%ond to res%ondent hence/ the latter/ through counsel/ re-uested the return of ts down %a#!ent. As %et t oners d d not ac-u esce/ res%ondent f led a co!%la nt for resc ss on w th da!ages w th the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt *&T'+ of Ma(at . As a counter!ove/ %et t oners f led the nstant case for s%ec f c %erfor!ance w th the &T' of >aguna. &es%ondent f led a !ot on to d s! ss on the ground of l t s %endent a. 2et t oners o%%osed contend ng that the nstant co!%la nt for s%ec f c %erfor!ance was served on res%ondent ahead of the serv ce of the co!%la nt for resc ss on on %et t oners. >ater/ however/ res%ondent w thdrew ts !ot on to d s! ss n v ew of the order of the &T' of Ma(at d s! ss ng the co!%la nt for resc ss on. In ts Answer w th 'ountercla !/ res%ondent alleged "# wa# of aff r!at ve defense that 9s%ec f c %erfor!ance s not %oss "le "ecause the res%ondent had alread# "ought another %ro%ert# wh ch s untenanted/ devo d of an# legal co!%l cat ons and now converted fro! agr cultural to non:agr cultural %ur%ose n accordance w th 5A& Ad! n strat ve 7rder. Thereafter/ %et t oners f led a Mot on to , thdraw 'o!%la nt cons der ng res%ondent6s s%ec al defense that s%ec f c %erfor!ance was no longer %oss "le. The# %ra#ed that the r co!%la nt and res%ondent6s countercla ! "e ordered w thdrawn or d s! ssed/ argu ng that res%ondent6s countercla ! would have no leg to stand on as t was 33

co!%ulsor# n nature. ISSUEB ,hether res%ondent6s countercla ! should "e d s! ssed. HELDB There are two wa#s "# wh ch an act on !a# "e d s! ssed u%on the nstance of the %la nt ff. A rst/ d s! ssal s a !atter of r ght when a not ce of d s! ssal s f led "# the %la nt ff "efore an answer or a !ot on for su!!ar# judg!ent has "een served on h ! "# the defendant. Cecond/ d s! ssal s d scret onar# on the court when the !ot on for the d s! ssal of the act on s f led "# the %la nt ff at an# stage of the %roceed ngs other than "efore serv ce of an answer or a !ot on for su!!ar# judg!ent. ,h le the d s! ssal n the f rst !ode ta(es effect u%on the !ere not ce of %la nt ff w thout need of a jud c al order/ the second !ode re-u res the author t# of the court "efore d s! ssal of the case !a# "e effected. Th s s so "ecause n the d s! ssal of an act on/ the effect of the d s! ssal u%on the r ghts of the defendant should alwa#s "e ta(en nto cons derat on. In the case at "ar/ t s und s%uted that %et t oners f led a Mot on to , thdraw 'o!%la nt after res%ondent alread# f led ts answer w th countercla !. In fact/ the reason for the r !ot on for w thdrawal was the s%ec al defense of res%ondent n ts answer that su"st tut on was no longer %oss "le as t alread# "ought another %ro%ert# n l eu of the su"ject lots under the contract. It s/ therefore/ ne@%l ca"le how %et t oners could argue that the r co!%la nt was successfull# w thdrawn u%on the !ere f l ng of a Mot on to , thdraw 'o!%la nt when the# the!selves alleged n th s %et t on that 9%r vate res%ondent o"jected to the w thdrawal and the Tr al 'ourt susta ned the o"ject on.9

G.R. No. 13&'&5

J!n*!64 -1, -&&3

LAGRIMAS PACA7A.GON8ALES, !s one o# $ e e96s o# L*A9!no P!A!F!, @e$9$9one6, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS !n2 MANUEL CARBONELL PHUA, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB C%ouses A!ar llo reg stered owners of su"ject lot 7746 located n 'e"u/ t was conve#ed to Manuel 'ar"onell 2hua and A!ar llo0s t tle was cancelled. More than a decade later he rs of 2acaRa cla ! the lot and f led a co!%la nt for ;ull t# of T tle and Annul!ent of 5eed of Cale. Cu!!ons together w th the co!%la nt was served to the s%ouses A!ar llo "ut not to the 2hua who was un(nown at h s g ven address at Cal nas 'o!%ound >ahug/ 'e"u ' t#. Cerv ce of su!!ons to 2hua "# %ostal serv ce was served "ut the sa!e fa led/ then su!!ons "# %u"l cat on was resorted. It was %u"l sh once a wee( for *3+ three consecut ve wee(s. ;o answer rec evd "# 2hua w th n regle!entar# %er od. The &T' declared h ! n default and the he rs of 2acaRa were allowed to %resent the r ev dence e@%arte. 5ec s on was served aga nst the defendant "# %u"l cat on and the &eg ster of 5eeds of 'e"u ' t# ssue a new transfer cert f cate of t tle to 2acaRa. 2hua f led for annul!ent of judg!ent n 'ourt 7f A%%eals/ "ecause when the case was f led "# the 2acaRa he d d not rece ve an# su!!ons "ecause he was outs de the countr#. 'A granted the %et t on and the &T'0c dec s on were declared null and vo d/ for lac( of jur sd ct on over the %erson. ISSUEB 34

1. ,hether or not the serv ce of su!!ons to 2hua was val d. 2. ,hether or not the %u"l sher s of general c rculat on. 3. ,hether or not &T' ac-u re jur sd ct on.

HELDB 1. In rule 14 C<'. 21. Proo# o# service by publication. S If the serv ce has "een !ade "# %u"l cat on/ serv ce !a# "e %roved "# the aff dav t of the %r nter/ h s fore!an or %r nc %al cler(/ or of the ed tor/ "us ness or advert s ng !anager/ to wh ch aff dav t a co%# of the %u"l cat on shall "e attached/ and "# an aff dav t show ng the de%os t of a co%# of the su!!ons and order for %u"l cat on n the %ost off ce/ %ostage %re%a d/ d rected to the defendant "# reg stered !a l to h s last (nown address. C nce 2hua0s wherea"outs were un(nown and could not "e ascerta ned "# d l gent n-u r#/ serv ce of su!!ons "# %u"l cat on was correctl# ava led of "# the 1e rs of 2acaRa. $ut such serv ce of su!!ons to 2hua "# %u"l cat on was not su%%orted "# an aff dav t therefore t s nval d. 2. The ? sa#an 1erald s %u"l shed for the d sse! nat on of local news and general nfor!at on/ that t has a "ona f de su"scr %t on l st of %a# ng su"scr "ers and that t s %u"l shed at regular ntervals. The ? sa#an 1erald %u"l sh ng was not cons dered a news%a%er of general c rculat on "ecause the r %u"l cat ons were "# ntervals and s onl# "# the r "ona f de su"scr %t on l st of %a# ng su"scr "ers/ l terall# not for %u"l c and thus not -ual f ed as general c rculat on. 3. &eg onal Tr al 'ourt fa led to ac-u re jur sd ct on for not d l gentl# follow ng re-u red necessar# re-u s tes. 1ence the ssuance of new cert f cate s null and vo d.

G.R. No. 1(&')%, Se@$e=be6 -%, -&&5 PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PNOC E0PLORATION CORPORATION, RESPONDENT FACTSB 2;7' <@%lorat on 'or%orat on f led a co!%la nt for su! of !one# for 2edro Cantos0 un%a d "alance of the car loan. 2ersonal serv ce of su!!ons to the %et t oner fa led/ "ecause he could not "e located. The &T' allowed serv ce of su!!ons "# %u"l cat on. 2et t oner fa led to f le h s answer w th n %rescr "ed %er od. &es%ondent %roceeded w th the e@%arte %resentat on and for!al offer of ts ev dence/ and declared su"! tted for dec s on. 2et t oner sought for !ot on for recons derat on "ut was den ed. 2et t oner a%%ealed for %et t on for cert orar / he contended that the orders of the &T' were ssued w th grave a"use of d scret on/ for !%ro%er serv ce of su!!ons/ fa l ng for furn sh w th co% es of ts orders and %rocesses and the serv ce of %u"l cat on was !%ro%er. The 'ourt of A%%eals den ed h s recons derat on and d s! sses h s %et t on. ISSUESB 1. ,hether or not &T' erred n fa l ng to ad! t %et t oner0s answer. 2. ,hether or not &T' erred for not furn sh ng h ! a co%# of ts order. 3. ,hether serv ce "# %u"l cat on was !%ro%er for act ons n %ersona! *su! of !one#+.

HELDB

3.

1. The &eg onal Tr al 'ourt was correct for non ad! ttance of h s *%et t oner0s+ answer
"ecause t was f led late or "e#ond the regle!entar# %er od.

2. The &eg onal Tr al 'ourt was correct for not grant ng h ! the co%# of orders/
"ecause when the &T' send the co% es to h s last (nown address he was not found n the address. 3. Cerv ce "# %u"l cat on was %ro%er "ecause he was not found n h s last (nown address and s t s %ro%er "ecause accord ng to rule&ule 14 *on Cu!!ons+ of the &ules of 'ourt %rov desH C<'. 14. Service upon de#endant whose identity or whereabouts are un.nown. : In an# act on where the defendant s des gnated as an un(nown owner/ or the l (e/ or whenever h s wherea"outs are un(nown and cannot "e ascerta ned "# d l gent n-u r#/ serv ce !a#/ "# leave of court/ "e effected u%on h ! "# %u"l cat on n a news%a%er of general c rculat on and n such %laces and for such t !es as the court !a# order. Th s %art cular %rov s on does not %roh " t of whetever act on t !a# "e for t s a%%l ca"le for an# act on. G.R. No. 13')5-. A*+*s$ %&, -&&3 NICASIO P. RODRIGUE8 JR., ANTONIO P. ERE7ETA, JUANITO A. MAGNO, VICTOR C. PINEDA, BITUIN V. SALCEDO, CESAR R. SAN DIEGO, VICTOR V. TANTOCO !n2 AMADOR C. DE LA MERCED, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO L. AGUILAR SR., respondent. FACTSB 2et t oners are !e!"ers of the $oard of 5 rectors of the 2h l %% ne 2ostal Cav ngs $an(/ and res%ondent Anton o Agu lar was e!%lo#ed as v ce %res dent of ts A nance and Ad! n strat ve 8rou%/ when h s serv ce were ter! nated. Anton o Agu lar f led aga nst %et t oners w th the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt for h s llegal d s! ssal and %ra#ed for award of da!ages and the ssuance of te!%orar# restra n ng order enjo n ng the %et t oners and to "e re nstated. The judge d s! ssed the co!%la nt for lac( of jur sd ct on that the case l es w th n the >a"or Ar" ter of ;at onal >a"or &elat on 'o!! ss on. 2r vate res%ondent f led a Mot on for &econs derat on/ an e@%arte to w thdraw !ot on for recons derat on of the d s! ssal. &e nstate!ent "e deleted. ISSUESB 1. ,as the !ot on for recons derat on val d 2. ,as the court has jur sd ct on to dec de the case HELDB 1. The f l ng of the !ot on for recons derat on nterru%ted the runn ng of the 1. da# regle!entar# %er od/ ts w thdrawal left res%ondent n e@actl# the sa!e %os t on as the no !ot on had "een f led at all/ t erases the toll ng of regle!entar# %er od. 2. ;at onal >a"or &elat on 'o!! ss on has the e@clus ve jur sd ct on to dec de regard ng an# la"or d s%utes/ wh le the &T' has the jur sd ct on and the effect ve !eans and also the ade-uate tool for arr v ng at a just accurate assess!ent of da!ages. G.R. No. 1%(%3' Se@$e=be6 1%, -&&)

ED1IN N. TRIBIANA, @e$9$9one6, vs. LOURDES M. TRIBIANA, 6es@on2en$ FACTSB

36

<dw n Tr " ana L >ourdes Tr " ana are hus"and and w fe. >ourdes f led a %et t on for ha"eas cor%us "efore the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt cla ! ng that <dw n left the r conjugal ho!e w th the r daughter Thr )a Mae 1 #ear and 4 !onths old t turned out that t "e ng held "# <dw n0s !other/ &osal na Tr " ana. <dw n !oved to d s! ss >ourdes %et t on on the ground that t fa led to allege that earnest efforts at a co!%ro! se >ourdes f led her o%%os t on to <dw n0s !ot on to d s! ss that there were %r or efforts at a co!%ro! se "ut fa led. >ourdes attached the 'ert f cat on to f le Act on fro! the r "aranga#. &T' den ed <dw n0s !ot on to d s! ss and re terated a %rev ous order re-u r ng <dw n and h s !other to "r ng Thr )a Mae "efore the &T'. <dw n f led w th the 'ourt of A%%eals a %et t on for %roh " t on and cert orar . The 'A den ed <dw n0s %et t on and also the !ot on for recons derat on. ISSUEB ,hether the Tr al 'ourt and the A%%ellate 'ourt/ should have d s! ssed the %et t on for ha"eas cor%us on the ground of fa lure to co!%l# w th the cond t on %recedent under art. 1.1 of Aa! l# code. HELDB The %et t on s lac( of !er t/ for the ha"eas cor%us on the ground of fa lure to co!%l# w th the art cle 1.1 of Aa! l# 'ode/ can not "e allowed such to d s! ss such w th the co!%l ance of art.1.1 "ecause the# are "oth d fferent n nature. The %et t on for ha"eas cor%us s a val d ground or content on of the res%ondent "ecause she was de%r ved of %ersonal l "ert#. The art. 1.1 cannot "e a%%l ed w th th s %resent case/ f ever t were su%%osed to "e a%%l ed/ >ourdes val dl# answer t w th ts co!%l ance when she attached the court to f le act on fro! the r $aranga#.

G.R. No. 1%&)&1 DeAe=be6 ), 1''5 LEONARDO ARCENAS, 6e@6esen$e2 b4 9s !$$o6ne4.9n.#!A$ CARMELITA ARCENAS VILLANUEVA, @e$9$9one6, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. ARMIE E. ELMA, P6es929n+ J*2+e o# B6!nA 13%, Re+9on!" T69!" Co*6$ o# P!s9+ C9$4, !n2 JOSE DELA RIVA, 6es@on2en$. FACTSB The case ta(es ts roots fro! an act on for annul!ent of the foreclosure sale of a "arge. The tr al court rendered judg!ent n favor of res%ondent Gose 5ela & va. After the 'ourt of A%%eals aff r!ed the dec s on/ the res%ondent f led a !ot on for the e@ecut on of judg!ent wh ch was granted "# sa d court. 1owever/ res%ondents fa led to enforce the judg!ent des% te the wr t of e@ecut on. After f ve #ears fro! the t !e of entr# of judg!ent/ %r vate res%ondent f led a co!%la nt for rev val of judg!ent. The su!!ons was unserved due to a"sence of %et t oner Arcenas. Thereafter/ on !ot on of the res%ondent 5ela & va/ the sher ff effected the serv ce of su!!ons "# su"st tuted serv ce to %et t oner0s !other who refused to rece ve and ac(nowledge the sa!e. The %et t oner was declared n default for h s fa lure to f le h s answer. Thereafter/ %r vate res%ondent was allowed to adduce h s ev dence e@ %arte. The lower court rendered a dec s on aga nst %et t oner.

ISSUEB ,hether or not the dec s on of the tr al court s correct. HELDB 1av ng fa led to serve the su!!ons to the %et t oner %ersonall#/ the lower court d d not val dl#Uac-u re jur sd ct on over h !. 'onse-uentl#/ the %roceed ngs held was null and 37

vo d. Cerv ce of su!!ons u%on the here n %et t oner s essent al n order for the court to ac-u re jur sd ct on over h s %erson. 2et t oner s no longer res d ng and found n the 2h l %% nes. As he left for the =n ted Ctates. 1ence/ su!!ons !a# "e served on h ! e ther %ersonall# or "# %u"l cat on. 1owever/ s nce the co!%la nt f led aga nst h ! s one n %ersona! *a %ersonal act on+ and does not nvolve the %ersonal status of the %r vate res%ondent/ nor an# %ro%ert# n the 2h l %% nes n wh ch %et t oner has a cla !/ or an nterest/ or wh ch the %r vate res%ondent has attached/ su!!ons should "e served on h ! %ersonall#. The de%ut# sher ff can not serve the su!!ons "# su"st tuted serv ce.

G.R. No. 1)'1%-

M!4 ', -&&-

JOSEPHINE B. NG !n2 JESSE NG, @e$9$9one6s, vs. SPOUSES MARCELO !n2 MARIA FE SOCO, !n2 MARVIN J. SOCO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB 2et t oners f led a co!%la nt for account ng/ njunct on/ and da!ages w th wr t of %rel ! nar# njunct on and te!%orar# restra n ng order aga nst the res%ondent. 2et t oners were the owners of Go0s 'h c(en $ar"e-ue *'h c(en Inato+ secret rec %e/ and that the sa d rec %e s used "# %et t oner0s cha n of restaurants n so!e c t es n ? sa#as and M ndanao. The# "oth entered nto a %artnersh % agree!ent that f the r %artnersh % d ssolved on account for d sagree!ent and ownersh % thereof shall revert "ac( to %et t oners. 2et t oners learned that Magno 8arc a o%erat ng a restaurant and that was !erel# used as a du!!# "# res%ondents n order to evade the r contractual o"l gat on. 2et t oner f led w th the Tr al court a !ot on to ad! t a!ended co!%la nt to !%lead 8arc a as one of the defendants. ISSUEB The 1onora"le 'ourt of A%%eals gravel# erred n hold ngH that the a!ended co!%la nt wh ch !erel# see(s to nclude the du!!# of the res%ondents could not "e ad! tted "ecause %et t oners6 theor# of the case s there"# changed and "ecause sa d du!!# s not an nd s%ensa"le %art# HELDB Aor!al and su"stant al a!end!ents to a %lead ng !a# "e !ade at an#t !e "efore a res%ons ve %lead ng has "een f led. Cuch a!end!ent s a !atter of r ght. Thereafter/ and dur ng tr al/ a!end!ents !a# onl# "e done w th the %er! ss on of the court. The 'ourt has nvar a"l# held that a!end!ents are not %ro%er and should "e den ed when dela# would ar se/ or when a!end!ents would result n a change of cause of act on or theor# of the case/ or would "e ncons stent w th the allegat ons n the or g nal co!%la nt. The court a quo den ed %et t oners6 a!ended co!%la nt u%on f nd ng that t w ll su"stant all# alter 9the cause of act on or defense or theor# of the case

A/ALA LAND, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, 9n 9s A!@!A9$4 !s P6es929n+ J*2+e, RTC.I=*s, B6!nA -&, ASB REALT/ CORP., !n2 E. M. RAMOS & SONS, INC., respondents. FACTSB AC$ &eal t# 'or%orat on alleged that <. M. &a!os and Cons *<M&AC7;+ entered nto a >etter:Agree!ent w th AC$ for the cond t onal sale of s @t#:f ve %ercent *6.O+ of the sa d land for a cons derat on of 2433/333/333.33 %a#a"le n f ve nstall!ents. AC$/ 38

rece ved a letter fro! the ch ldren of <!er to &a!os/ Cr./ nfor! ng h ! that/ the# entered nto a 'ontract to Cell sa d real estate %ro%ert es w th A#ala >and/ Inc. *A>I+. AC$ conf r!ed the contract of the &a!os ch ldren w th A>I when t found out that the sa!e was annotated on the Transfer 'ert f cates of T tle of the real estate %ro%ert es n d s%ute. AC$ f le a 'o!%la nt "efore the tr al court. A>I/ f led ts Answer w th 'o!%ulsor# 'ountercla ! and 'ross:cla !. 2la nt ff AC$ su"se-uentl# f led a Mot on/ for >eave to ta(e test !on# "# de%os t on u%on oral e@a! nat on of <!er to &a!os/ Cr./ AC$ then o"ta ned the de%os t on u%on oral e@a! nat on of <!er to &a!os/ Cr. on s @ d fferent occas ons/ A>I f led a DMot on to &esolve 7"ject ons E that n v olat ons of the "est:ev dence rule/ rule on %resentat on of secondar# ev dence/ nco!%etence of the de%onent/ o% n on rule/ !anner of %resentat on of ev dence/ and test !on es not for! ng %art of the offer. The tr al court/ cancelled the cross:e@a! nat on of <!er to &a!os/ Cr. The tr al court aga n d rected that the cross: e@a! nat on of <!er to &a!os/ Cr./ "e scheduled. A>I f led a Man festat on and Mot on %ra# ng that the date set "e cancelled and re:scheduled to another date. The tr al court reset the hear ng. <!er to &a!os/ Cr. d ed at the age of 92 #ears old. 2la nt ff then f led "efore the tr al court a !ot on to ntroduce n ev dence the de%os t on of <!er to &a!os/ Cr. The !ot on was o%%osed "# A>I. AC$ f led ts &e%l#. A>I thereafter f led ts &ejo nder and AC$ ts Cur:rejo nder. The tr al court ssued ts 7rder sett ng as de the o%%os t on of A>I and ad! tt ng n ev dence the de%os t on of <!er to &a!os/ Cr. A>I aga n elevated the case to the 'ourt of A%%eals "# wa# of 2et t on for &ev ew on Certiorari. the 'ourt of A%%eals d s! ssed the %et t on for lac( of !er t. A>I f led a Mot on for &econs derat on wh ch was o%%osed "# %r vate res%ondents AC$ and <M&AC7;. The !ot on was den ed n a resolut on. ISSUEB I. ,1<T1<& 7& ;7T T1< A>><8<5 5<27CITI7; 7A T1< ,IT;<CC <M<&IT7 M. &AM7C/ C&. IC A5MICCI$>< =;5<& T1< &=><C. II. ,1<T1<& 7& ;7T 2<TITI7;<& 1A5 ,AI?<5 ITC &I81T T7 '&7CC:<VAMI;< T1< 5<27;<;T/ <M<&IT7 M. &AM7C/ C&. III. ,1<T1<& 7& ;7T &<C27;5<;T A22<>>AT< '7=&T '7MMITT<5 8&A?< A$=C< 7A 5IC'&<TI7; AM7=;TI;8 T7 >A'T 7& <V'<CC 7A G=&IC5I'TI7; ,1<; IT C=CTAI;<5 T1< &=>I;8 7A T1< >7,<& '7=&T I; AI;5I;8 T1< 5<27CITI7; 7A ,IT;<CC <M<&IT7 M. &AM7C/ C&. AC A5MICCI$>< I; <?I5<;'<. HELDB 1. The f rst ssue s not novel. It !ust "e noted that the de%os t ons of <!er to &a!os/ Cr./ ta(en on the dates earl er were su"stant all# !ade n accordance w th the re-u re!ents of the &ules. In fact/ n ts 2et t on "efore the 'ourt of A%%eals/ A>I conf r!ed the ta( ng of de%os t on on sa d dates and that t was dul# re%resented "# ts counsel dur ng the %roceed ngs. It has "een re%eatedl# held that the de%os t on N d scover# rules are to "e accorded a "road and l "eral treat!ent and the l "ert# of a %art# to !a(e d scover# s well:n gh unrestr cted f the !atters n-u red nto are otherw se relevant and not %r v leged/ and the n-u r# s !ade n good fa th and w th n the "ounds of the law/ as n the case at "ar. 2. The second and th rd ssues ra sed "# A>I are that t was den ed an o%%ortun t# to cross:e@a! ne the de%onent conse-uentl# result ng n ts den al of due %rocess. The records reveal that A>I was g ven !ore than enough o%%ortun t# to cross:e@a! ne the de%onent and ts fa lure to e@erc se such r ght s solel# attr "uta"le to ts own nact on. At th s nstance/ A>I cannot fe gn %rejud ce and den al of due %rocess. ,here a %art# has had the o%%ortun t# to cross:e@a! ne a w tness "ut fa led to ava l h !self of t/ he necessar l# forfe ts the r ght to cross:e@a! ne. The Cu%re!e 'ourt does not ncl ned to ndulge the 2<TITI7;<& n ts argu!ent that t was de%r ved of ts const tut onal r ght to due %rocess. ?er l#/ the 2<TITI7;<& was afforded several o%%ortun t es to cross:e@a! ne the de%onent ATTI. &AM7C. 1owever/ des% te ts (nowledge of de%onent0s old age and fra l health/ 2<TITI7;<& chose to s-uander

39

ts r ght to su"ject under a%%ro%r ate test the assert ons ra sed "# the w tness n h s de%os t on.

G.R. No. 1&1,5- DeAe=be6 1), 1''SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA, @e$9$9one6, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, GERTRUDES B. MAG.ISA, =!669e2 $o !n2 !ss9s$e2 b4 PEDRO MAG.ISA, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB 2et t oner Calvador 5. $r "oner a/ f led a co!%la nt for Annul!ent of 5ocu!ent and 5a!ages/ w th %ra#er for %rel ! nar# njunct on andKor te!%orar# restra n ng order aga nst %r vate res%ondent 8ertrudes $. Mag: sa/ w th the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt of 2as g. In due t !e/ %r vate res%ondent 8ertrudes $. Mag: sa/ as defendant/ f led her answer/ after ssues n the case had "een jo ned/ %et t oner served on the %r vate res%ondent Mag: sa a re-uest for ad! ss on 2et t oner f led a Mot on for su!!ar# Gudg!ent/ cla ! ng that the Answer to &e-uest for Ad! ss on was f led "# %r vate res%ondents "e#ond the ten *13+ da# %er od f @ed n the re-uest and that the answer was not under oathF that/ conse-uentl# the %r vate res%ondents are dee!ed to have ad! tted the !ater al facts and docu!ents su"ject of the re-uest for ad! ss on. The %r vate res%ondents f led an o%%os t on to the !ot on for su!!ar# judg!ent/ wh le the %et t oner f led a re%l# to sa d o%%os t on. The %et t oner thereu%on f led w th the 'ourt of A%%eals a %et t on for certiorari/ %roh " t on and $anda$us to annul and set as de the order of the court a quo/ alleg ng that the sa d order was ssued w th grave a"use of d scret on a!ount ng to lac( of jur sd ct on. The 'ourt of A%%eals d s! sses the %et t on. 2et t oner6s !ot on for recons derat on hav ng "een l (ew se den ed. ISSUEB ,hether or not the a%%ellate court erred n hold ng that the !atters of fact and the docu!ents re-uested to "e ad! tted are !ere re terat ons andKor re%roduct ons of those alleged n the co!%la nt. HELDB 1e cla !s that the !ater al facts and docu!ents descr "ed n the re-uest for ad! ss on are relevant ev dent ar# !atters su%%ort ve of h s cause of act on. 1e further argues that the %r vate res%ondents have !%l edl# ad! tted the !ater al facts and docu!ents su"ject of the re-uest for ad! ss on on account of the r fa lure to answer the re-uest for ad! ss on w th n the %er od f @ed there n/ and for sa d answer not "e ng under oath. The %et t on cannot "e u%heldF the %et t oner6s content ons are devo d of !er t. 9The !ater al !atters and docu!ents set forth n the re-uest for ad! ss on are the sa!e as those set forth n the co!%la nt wh ch %r vate res%ondents e ther ad! tted or den ed n the r answer.9 t w ll "e noted that the re-uest for ad! ss on was not served u%on the %r vate res%ondent Mag: sa "ut u%on her counsel/ Att#. Alfredo A. Alto. 2r vate res%ondent Mag: sa/ therefore/ cannot "e dee!ed to have ad! tted the facts and docu!ents su"ject of the re-uest for ad! ss on for hav ng fa led to f le her answer thereto w th n the %er od f @ed n the re-uest. The %et t on should "e/ as t s here"#/ 5<;I<5. The dec s on of the 'ourt of A%%eals s AAAI&M<5.

43

G.R. No. 13)55,. J*"4 -5, -&&3J LUD1IG H. ADA8A, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBA/AN :$ e F96s$ DIVISION Ao=@ose2 o# J*s$9Aes GREGORIO S. ONG, CATALINO R. CASTANEDA, JR. !n2 FRANCISCO H. VILLARU8, JR. !n2 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 6e@6esen$e2 b4 SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE, respondents. FACTSB 5e%art!ent of 2u"l c ,or(s and 1 ghwa#s *52,1+ of 1st 5 str ct of Ba!"oanga del ;orte awarded to 2arents and Teachers Assoc at on *2TA+of Manawan ;at onal 1 gh Cchool *M;1C+ a contract for the construct on of a school "u ld ng at an agreed cons derat on of 2111/319..3. =%on the co!%let on of the %roject/ 2TA fa led to rece ve the last nstall!ent %a#!ent a!ount ng to 223/847.17. 2TA %res dent Ael @ Mejorda *Mejorda+ was nfor!ed "# 1a)el 2eRaranda/ 52,1 'ash er/ that the chec( for 223/847.17 had "een released to >udw g 1. Ada)a *Ada)a+. Cu"se-uentl#/ Mejorda found out that ac(nowledg ng rece %t of the chec( "ears h s na!e and s gnature wh ch was not h s. 1e l (ew se not ced that Ada)aWs s gnature was aff @ed on the voucher. 5ur ng that t !e/ Ada)a was !un c %al !a#or of Gose 5al!an. =%on e@a! nat on of 5$2 'hec( ssued to %a#ee/ Mejorada not ced that there were two s gnatures at the dorsal %ort on of t/ h s forged s gnature and another wh ch he found to "e that of Ar stela Ada)a *Ar stela+/ w fe of Ada)a. The 7ff ce of the 7!"uds!an f led two Infor!at ons aga nst Ada)a. The Cad gan"a#an found Ada)a gu lt# of the offense charged. It thereafter ssued a $ench ,arrant of Arrest. 1ence/ the f l ng of th s %et t on. ISSUEB ,hether or not Cand gan"a#an has jur sd ct on over the fals f cat on case aga nst Ada)a wh ch was not n relat on to h s %os t on as !un c %al !a#or HELDB In the nstant case/ there s no show ng that the alleged fals f cat on was co!! tted "# the accused/ f at all/ as a conse-uence of/ and wh le the# were d scharg ng/ off c al funct ons. The nfor!at on does not allege that there was an nt !ate connect on "etween the d scharge of off c al dut es and the co!! ss on of the offense. . . . 'learl# therefore/ as the alleged fals f cat on was not an offense co!! tted n relat on to the off ce of the accused/ t d d not co!e under the jur sd ct on of the Cand gan"a#an. It follows that all ts acts n the nstant case are null and vo d ab initio.

CALIFORNIA AND HA1AIIAN SUGAR COMPAN/G PACIFIC GULF MARINE, INC.G !n2 C.F. SHARP & COMPAN/, petitioners, vs. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURET/ CORPORATION, respondent. FACTSB M? DC=8A& IC>A;5<&E *vessel+ arr ved at the %ort of Man la carr# ng a cargo of so#"ean !eal n "ul( cons gned to several cons gnees/ one of wh ch was the Metro Man la Aeed M llers Assoc at on *Metro+. The cargo was allegedl# offloaded/ re"agged and reloaded on cons gnee0s del ver# truc(s. &es%ondent/ cla !s that "ased on a truc( scale a shortage of 2...3.1 !etr c tons valued at 21/621/171.16 was d scovered. The sh %!ent was nsured all r s( n the a!ount of 219/976/434.33. 5ue to the alleged refusal of %et t oners to settle the r res%ect ve l a" l t es/ res%ondent/ as nsurer/ %a d the cons gnee Metro Man la Aeed M ller0s Assoc at on. Metro/ %r vate res%ondent f led a co!%la nt for da!ages aga nst here n %et t oners. , th n the regle!entar# %er od to f le an Answer/ %et t oners f led a Mot on to 5 s! ss the co!%la nt on 41

the ground that res%ondent0s cla ! s %re!ature/ the sa!e "e ng ar" tra"le. 2r vate res%ondent f led ts 7%%os t on thereto and %et t oners f led the r &e%l# to 7%%os t on. &T' ssued an 7rder deferr ng the hear ng on the Mot on to 5 s! ss unt l the tr al and d rect ng %et t oners to f le the r Answer. 2et t oner !oved to recons der "ut s den ed "# &T' on the ground that t was a !atter of defense wh ch the# !ust %rove w th the r ev dence. ISSUESB 1.,hether or not nsurer/ as su"rogee of the cons gnee/ s "ound "# the charter %art# wh ch s ncor%orated and referred to n the " ll of lad ng. 2. ,hether or not the !ot on to d s! ss should "e granted on the ground that a cond t on %recedent has not "een co!%l ed w th/ "ased on the ar" trat on clause ncor%orated n the " ll of lad ng. 3. ,hether or not the 'ourt of A%%eals erred n hold ng that the tr al court d d not co!! t grave a"use of d scret on n den# ng %et t oners0 !ot on for %rel ! nar# hear ng. 4. ,hether or not the tr al court can defer the resolut on of a !ot on to d s! ss on the ground that the ground rel ed u%on s ndu" ta"le. .. ,hether or not the %et t oners have resorted to an !%ro%er re!ed# wh ch !a(es the! res%ons "le for dela# ng the case.E In the den al of %et t oners0 Mot on for 2rel ! nar# 1ear ng. HELDB A rst IssueH Preli$inary /earing o# A##ir$ative 0e#ense At the outset/ we !ust e!%has )e that the cru@ of the %resent controvers# s the tr al court0s 7rder den# ng %et t oner0s Mot on to Cet for 2rel ! nar# 1ear ng the aff r!at ve defense of lac( of cause of act on. ;ot -uest oned here s the sa d court0s 7rder hold ng n a"e#ance the hear ng of %et t oner0s Mot on to 5 s! ss. A##ir$ative 0e#ense May 1e aised In the %resent case/ however/ the tr al court d d not categor call# resolve %et t oners0 Mot on to 5 s! ss/ "ut !erel# deferred resolut on thereof. Indeed/ the %resent &ules are cons stent w th Cect on ./ &ule 16 of the %re:1997 &ules of 'ourt/ "ecause "oth %resu%%ose that no !ot on to d s! ss had "een f ledF or n the case of the %re:1997 &ules/ f one has "een f led/ t has not been unconditionally denied. 1ence/ the ground nvo(ed !a# st ll "e %leaded as an aff r!at ve defense even f the defendant0s Mot on to 5 s! ss has "een f led "ut not def n tel# resolved/ or f t has "een deferred as t could "e under the %re:1997 &ules. 0enial o# the Motion #or a Preli$inary /earing 2as a 3rave Abuse o# 0iscretion The !ore cruc al -uest on that we !ust settle here s whether the tr al court co!! tted grave a"use of d scret on when t den ed %et t oners0 Mot on for a 2rel ! nar# 1ear ng on the r aff r!at ve defense of lac( of cause of act on. =nden a"l#/ a %rel ! nar# hear ng s not !andator#/ "ut su"ject to the d scret on of the tr al court. In the l ght of the c rcu!stances n th s case/ though/ we f nd that the lower court co!! tted grave a"use of d scret on n refus ng to grant the Mot on. ,e note that the tr al court deferred the resolut on of %et t oners0 Mot on to 5 s! ss "ecause of a s ngle ssue. It was a%%arentl# unsure whether the charter %art# that the " ll of lad ng referred to was ndeed the $alt !ore $erth 8ra n 'harter 2art# su"! tted "# %et t oners. 'ons der ng that there was onl# one -uest on/ wh ch !a# even "e dee!ed to "e the ver# touchstone of the whole case/ the tr al court had no cogent reason to den# the Mot on for 2rel ! nar# 1ear ng. Indeed/ t co!! tted grave a"use of d scret on when t den ed a %rel ! nar# hear ng on a s !%le ssue of fact that could have %oss "l# settled the ent re case. ?er l#/ where a %rel ! nar# hear ng a%%ears to suff ce/ there s no reason to go on to tr al. 7ne reason wh# doc(ets of tr al courts are clogged s the unreasona"le refusal to use a %rocess or %rocedure/ l (e a !ot on to d s! ss/ wh ch s des gned to a""rev ate the resolut on of a case.

G.R. No. 133&1&

A*+*s$ 1,, -&&) 42

JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., INC., @e$9$9one6, vs. S@o*ses SUHARTO MANGUDADATU !n2 MIRIAM SANG<I MANGUDADATU, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB &es%ondent:C%ouses Cuharto and M r a! Cang( Mangudadatu f led w th the *&T'+ a 'o!%la nt for da!ages aga nst 2et t oner Gonathan >ando l Internat onal 'o./ Inc. *9G>I9+. The %et t oner had countered w th a Mot on to 5 s! ssF "ut when th s was den ed/ t f led ts Answer. The %art es su"! tted the r res%ect ve 2retr al $r efs. Tr al %roceeded w thout the %art c %at on of %et t oner/ had led the tr al court to declare t n default. 2et t oner rece ved a co%# of the &T'0s 5ec s on. t f led an 7!n "us Mot on for ;ew Tr al and 'hange of ?enue. Th s Mot on was dee!ed su"! tted for resolut on "ut was eventuall# den ed "# the tr al court. 2et t oner rece ved a co%# of a ,r t of <@ecut on. Alleg ng that t had #et to rece ve a co%# of an 7rder resolv ng the 7!n "us Mot on for ;ew Tr al/ %et t oner f led a Mot on to JuashK&ecall ,r t of <@ecut on. Its counsels :: Att#s. Ga !e >. Mar o Gr. and 5 oscoro 8. 2el gro :: su"! tted se%arate w thdrawals of a%%earance. 7n the sa!e date/ the law f r! 7ng A"ad Cantos L Meneses f led an <ntr# of A%%earance w th Cu%%le!ent to Mot on to JuashK&ecall ,r t of <@ecut on. 2et t oner attached the Aff dav ts of Att#s. Mar o and 2el gro attest ng that the# had not #et rece ved a co%# of the 7rder resolv ng the 7!n "us Mot on for ;ew Tr al.7n the sa!e da#/ %et t oner rece ved a Cher ff0s ;ot ce/ regard ng the %u"l c auct on sale of ts %ro%ert es. $# reason of the !!ed ate threat to !%le!ent the ,r t of <@ecut on/ t f led w th the 'A a 2et t on for 2roh " t on see( ng to enjo n the enforce!ent of the ,r t unt l the resolut on of the Mot on to Juash. The &T' ssued an 7rder d rect ng res%ondents to f le the r wr tten co!!ent on the Mot on to Juash and scheduled the hear ng. ISSUESB *1+ ,hether %et t oner rece ved the 7rder den# ng ts t !el# f led Mot on for ;ew Tr alF *2+ ,hether the ta( ng of oral de%os t ons was %ro%er under the c rcu!stances. HELDB *1+ A rst Issue Appreciation o# 4acts It s read l# a%%arent that %et t oner s ra s ng factual ssues that th s 'ourt does not rev ew. ,h le the rule ad! ts of e@ce%t ons/ %et t oner has not sat sfactor l# shown an#. ;o co!%ell ng reason to d stur" the 'A0s factual f nd ngs. It !a# therefore not ns st/ contrar# to the f nd ng of the 'A/ that t d d not rece ve the 7rder den# ng ts t !el# f led Mot on for ;ew Tr al. Motion #or -ew !rial 5$proper The e@%lanat on offered "# %et t oner as regards the a"sence of ts counsel fro! the %retr al s unacce%ta"le. It should have also just f ed ts own a"sence. 1av ng fa led to do so/ t had no val d ground to re-uest a new tr al. 2et t oner also fa led to just f# the a"sence of "oth ts counsels. =nt l the r for!al w thdrawal s granted/ law#ers are dee!ed to "e the re%resentat ves of the r cl ents. Att#. Aernande) a"sence fro! the %retr al was st ll not e@cusa"le. ,h le he could no longer re%resent %et t oner/ h s %resence would have afforded h ! an o%%ortun t# to !a(e a for!al w thdrawal of a%%earance. An !%rov dent ter! nat on of legal serv ces s not an e@cuse to just f# non:a%%earance at a %retr al. 7therw se/ the rules of %rocedure would "e rendered !ean ngless/ as the# would "e su"ject to the counsel0s w ll. !he Proper e$edy =nder the new &ules/ the conse-uence of non:a%%earance w thout cause at the %retr al s not for the %et t oner to "e cons dered 9as n default/9 "ut 9to allow the %la nt ff to %resent ev dence e@ %arte and PforQ the court to render judg!ent on the "as s thereof.9 To the tr al court0s order allow ng the e@ %arte %resentat on of ev dence "# the %la nt ff/ the 43

defendant0s re!ed# s a !ot on for recons derat on. An aff dav t of !er t s not re-u red to "e attached to such !ot on/ "ecause the defense has alread# "een la d down n the answer. In the %resent case/ %et t oner d d not f le a !ot on for recons derat on after the tr al court had allowed res%ondents0 e@ %arte %resentat on of ev dence. The &ules of 'ourt does not %roh " t the f l ng of a !ot on for a new tr al des% te the ava la" l t# of a !ot on for recons derat on. $ut the fa lure to f le the latter !ot on :: w thout due cause :: s a factor n deter! n ng whether to a%%l# the l "eral t# rule n l ft ng an order that allowed the e@ %arte %resentat on of ev dence. In ts !ot ons and %et t ons f led w th th s 'ourt and the lower courts/ %et t oner d d not e@%la n wh# t had fa led to f le a !ot on for recons derat on. The la%se of t !e t shows the negl gence of %et t oner and ts counsels. -on+ eceipt o# the 6rder 2et t oner fa ls to conv nce us that t has not rece ved the tr al court0s 7rder den# ng ts Mot on for ;ew Tr al. There s a d s%uta"le %resu!%t on that off c al dut es have "een regularl# %erfor!ed. 7n th s "as s/ we have ruled that the %ost!aster0s cert f cat on %reva ls over the !ere den al of a law#er. Th s rule s a%%l ca"le here. 2et t oner has fa led to esta"l sh ts non:rece %t of the tr al court0s 7rder den# ng ts Mot on for ;ew Tr al. *2+ Cecond Issue !he !a.ing o# 0epositions The %resent case nvolved a c rcu!stance that fell under the Cect on 4*c+*2+ of &ule 23 :: the w tnesses of %et t oner n Metro Man la res ded "e#ond 133 ( lo!eters fro! Cultan Tudarat/ the %lace of hear ng. 2et t oner offered the de%os t ons n su%%ort of ts Mot on to Juash *the ,r t of <@ecut on+ and for the %ur%ose of %rov ng that the tr al court0s 5ec s on was not #et f nal. As %rev ousl# e@%la ned/ des% te the fact that tr al has alread# "een ter! nated/ a de%os t on can st ll "e %ro%erl# ta(en. The &T' d d not totall# d sregard %et t oner0s de%os t ons. the tr al court cons dered and we ghed :: aga nst all other ev dence :: that ts 7rder den# ng the Mot on for ;ew Tr al f led "# %et t oner had not "een rece ved "# the latter0s counsels. 5es% te the r de%os t ons/ %et t oner fa led to %rove conv nc ngl# ts den al of rece %t.

G.R. No. 1)1-33

J*ne -1, -&&3

LUCIANO ELLO !n2 GAUDIOSA ELLO, @e$9$9one6s, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, !n2 CONSTANTINO G. JARAULA, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB &es%ondent C%r ngf eld 5evelo%!ent 'or%orat on s the owner and actual %ossessor of a lot covered "# Transfer 'ert f cate of T tle *T'T+ ;o. T:92.71/ wh le res%ondent 'onstant no Garaula s the owner and actual %ossessor of a covered "# T'T ;o. T:63388/ "oth s tuated at 'aga#an de 7ro ' t#. The two lots adjo n each other and were or g nall# %arts of a 12:hectare lot wh ch has "een develo%ed "# res%ondents as the Mega 1e ghts Cu"d v s on. Co!et !e n 1996/ %et t oner s%ouses >uc ano and 8aud osa <llo and the r h red %ersonnel surre%t t ousl# and stealth l# occu% ed res%ondents0 lots/ "u lt a !a(e:sh ft shed under the trees/ and fenced the area the# occu% ed. &es%ondents then de!anded that %et t oners and the r h red %ersonnel vacate the area "ut the# refused. Instead/ the# threatened and %revented res%ondents fro! develo% ng the r lots nto a su"d v s on. Thus/ res%ondent C%r ngf eld 5evelo%!ent 'or%orat on and 'onstant no 8. Garaula/ f led a co!%la nt aga nst the! for forc "le entr# w th a%%l cat on for %rel ! nar# !andator# njunct on.

44

ISSUEB ,hether the 'ourt of A%%eals gravel# a"used ts d scret on when t d s! ssed outr ght %et t oners0 %et t on for rev ew on the sole techn cal ground that t does not conta n the aff dav t of serv ce as re-u red "# Cect on 11 n relat on to Cect on 13/ &ule 13 of the 1997 &ules of ' v l 2rocedure. HELDB Cect ons 3 and ./ &ule 13 of the 1997 &ules of ' v l 2rocedure/ as a!ended/ %rescr "e two !odes of f l ng and serv ce of %lead ngs/ !ot ons/ not ces/ orders/ judg!ents and other %a%ers. These areH *a+ "# %ersonal del ver#/ governed "# Cect on 6 of the sa!e &uleF and *"+ "# !a l/ under Cect on 7 thereof. 1owever/ Cect on 11 of &ule 13 re-u res that Dwhenever %ract ca"le/E the f l ng of %lead ngs and other %a%ers n court/ as well as the serv ce of sa d %a%ers on the adverse %art# or h s counsel/ !ust "e done D%ersonall#.E $ut f such f l ng and serv ce were through a d fferent !ode/ the %art# concerned !ust su"! t a Dwr tten e@%lanat onE wh# the# were not done %ersonall#. There s no -uest on that %et t oners v olated Cect on 11 of &ule 13 "# fa l ng to a%%end the aff dav t of serv ce to the r %et t on for rev ew f led w th the 'ourt of A%%eals. 2et t oners/ u%on rece %t of the 'ourt of A%%eals0 challenged &esolut on d s! ss ng outr ght the r %et t on due to such o! ss on/ %ro!%tl# f led a !ot on for recons derat on/ read l# ac(nowledg ng the r %rocedural la%se and attach ng therew th the re-u red aff dav t of serv ce. &ules of %rocedure !ust "e fa thfull# followed e@ce%t onl# when for %ersuas ve reasons/ the# !a# "e rela@ed to rel eve a l t gant of an njust ce not co!!ensurate w th h s fa lure to co!%l# w th the %rescr "ed %rocedure.

G.R. No. 1)(%)'. Feb6*!64 1%, -&&) MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORIT/ VS. ALA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

FACTSB The contract for the structural re%a r and water%roof ng of the I2T and I'T "u ld ng of the ;AIA a r%ort was awarded/ after a %u"l c " dd ng/ to res%ondent A>A. &es%ondent !ade the necessar# re%a r and water%roof ng. After su"! ss on of ts %rogress " ll ngs to the %et t oner/ res%ondent rece ved %art al %a#!ents. 2rogress " ll ng re!a ned un%a d des% te re%eated de!ands "# the res%ondent. Meanwh le %et t oner un laterall# resc nded the contract on the ground that res%ondent fa led to co!%lete the %roject w th n the agreed co!%let on date. &es%ondent o"jected to the resc ss on !ade "# the %et t oner and re terated ts cla !s. The tr al court d rected the %art es to %roceed to ar" trat on. $oth %art es e@ecuted a co!%ro! se agree!ent and jo ntl# f led n court a !ot on for judg!ent "ased on the co!%ro! se agree!ent. The 'ourt a -uo rendered judg!ent a%%rov ng the co!%ro! se agree!ent. Aor %et t oner0s fa lure to %a# w th n the %er od st %ulated/ res%ondent f led a !ot on for e@ecut on to enforce ts cla !. 2et t oner f led a co!!ent and attr "uted the dela#s to ts "e ng a govern!ent agenc#. The tr al court den ed the res%ondent0s !ot on. &evers ng the tr al court/ the 'A ordered t to ssue a wr t of e@ecut on to enforce res%ondent0s cla !. The a%%ellate court rat oc nated that a judg!ent rendered n accordance w th a co!%ro! se agree!ent was !!ed atel# e@ecutor#/ and that a dela# was not su"stant al co!%l ance therew th. ISSUESB 1+ ,hether or not dec s on "ased on co!%ro! se agree!ent s f nal and e@ecutor#. 2+ ,hether or not dela# "# one %art# on a co!%ro! se just f es e@ecut on. HELDB 4.

1. A co!%ro! se once a%%roved "# f nal orders of the court has the force of res jud cata "etween the %art es and should not "e d stur"ed e@ce%t for v ces of consent or forger#. 1ence/ a dec s on on a co!%ro! se agree!ent s f nal and e@ecutor#. Cuch agree!ent has the force of law and s conclus ve "etween the %art es. It transcends ts dent t# as a !ere contract " nd ng onl# u%on the %art es thereto/ as t "eco!es a judg!ent that s su"ject to e@ecut on n accordance w th the &ules. Gudges therefore have the ! n ster al and !andator# dut# to !%le!ent and enforce t. 2. The fa lure to %a# on the date st %ulated was clearl# a v olat on of the Agree!ent. Thus/ non:fulf ll!ent of the ter!s of the co!%ro! se just f ed e@ecut on. It s the he ght of a"surd t# for %et t oner to attr "ute to a fortu tous event ts dela#ed %a#!ent. 2et t oner0s e@%lanat on s clearl# a gratu tous assert on that "orders callousness.

G.R. No. RTJ.&-.1,(). J!n*!64 --, -&&) BAILINANG MAROHOMBSAR VS. JUDGE SANTOS ADIONG FACTSB 'o!%la nant Maroho!"sar was the defendant n the c v l case for njunct on. The case was f led "# Ias! ra 2angada%un -uest on ng the legal t# of Maroho!"sar0s a%%o nt!ent as 2rov nc al Coc al ,elfare 7ff cer of the 5C,5:A&MM. 2r or to h s a%%o nt!ent/ 2angada%un used to occu%# sa d %os t on. =%on the f l ng of the sa d co!%la nt/ res%ondent judge ssued a T&7 and set the hear ng on the a%%l cat on for the ssuance of the %rel ! nar# njunct on. Cu!!ons/ together w th a co%# of the co!%la nt and a not ce/ was also served on "oth %art es. Maroho!"sar f led an e@ %arte urgent !ot on to d ssolve the T&7. 2angada%un was g ven the t !e to co!!ent. &es%ondent judge ssued an order stat ng that a %rel ! nar# conference had "een held and that "oth %art es had wa ved the raffle of the case and reset the hear ng on the a%%l cat on for the ssuance of a wr t of njunct on. The judge gave another t !e to f le her co!!ent aga n. 5ur ng the hear ng on the a%%l cat on for the ssuance of a wr t of %rel ! nar# njunct on/ none of the law#ers a%%eared. 1ence/ res%ondent judge cons dered t su"! tted for resolut on and ssued the %rel ! nar# njunct on. 1ence/ th s co!%la nt for gross gnorance of law/ a"use of d scret on and conduct un"eco! ng a judge. ISSUESB 1+ ,hether or not T&7 e@ %arte s allowed n the nstant case. 2+ ,hether or not tr al:t#%e hear ng s essent al to due %rocess. 3+ ,hether or not res%ondent judge erred n order ng the ssuance of the wr t of %rel ! nar# njunct on.

HELDB 1+ A T&7 s generall# granted w thout not ce to the o%%os te %art# and s ntended onl# as a restra nt on h ! unt l the %ro%r et# of grant ng a te!%orar# njunct on can "e deter! ned. It goes no further than to %reserve the status -uo unt l that deter! nat on. &es%ondent judge was just f ed n ssu ng the T&7 e@ %arte due to h s assess!ent of the urgenc# of the rel ef sought. 2+ In a%%l cat ons for %rel ! nar# njunct on/ the dual re-u re!ent of %r or not ce and hear ng "efore njunct on !a# ssue has "een rela@ed to the %o nt that not all %et t ons for %rel ! nar# njunct on need undergo a tr al:t#%e hear ng/ t "e ng doctr nal that a for!al or tr al:t#%e hear ng s not/ at all t !es and n all nstances/ essent al to due %rocess. The essence of due %rocess s that a %art# s afforded a reasona"le o%%ortun t# to "e heard and 46

to %resent an# ev dence he !a# have n su%%ort of h s defense. It s a rule that a %art# cannot cla ! that he has "een den ed due %rocess when he was g ven the o%%ortun t# to %resent h s %os t on. 3+ As a !atter of %u"l c %ol c#/ the acts of a judge n h s off c al ca%ac t# are not su"ject to d sc %l nar# act on even though such acts are erroneous/ %rov ded he acts n good fa th and w thout !al ce. &es%ondent judge/ or an# other !e!"er of the "ench for that !atter/ s %resu!ed to have acted regularl# and n the !anner that %reserves the deal of the cold neutral t# of an !%art al judge !%l c t n the guarantee of due %rocess.

G.R. No. 1%-(3% Feb6*!64 13, 1''' MARIO SIASOCO, ANGELITA E. SIASOCO, MA. BELLA SIASOCO, ESTER SIASOCO. LAMUG, MA. LOURDES SIASOCO LAMUG.BARRIOS, MA. RAMONA SIASOCO. LAMUG, MA. VICTORIA SIASOCO LAMUG.DOMINGUE8, BELEN SIASOCO.JOSE, RAFAEL SIASOCO JOSE, C/NTHIA SIASOCO JOSE, CRISTINA SIASOCO JOSE, ROBERTO SIASOCO JOSE, CARIDAD SIASOCO JOSE, RAMON SIASOCO JOSE, OSCAR SIASOCO, RUBEN SIASOCO, SALOME SIASOCO.PA8, MEDARDO PA8 SIASOCO, ROLANDO PA8 SIASOCO, JESUS PA8 SIASOCO, NELL/ STO. DOMINGO NARIO, MAR/ GRACE STO. DOMINGO NARIO !n2 MAR/ ANNE STO. DOMINGO NARIO, @e$9$9one6s, vs. COURT OF APPEALSG HON. MARCELINO BAUTISTA JR., P6es929n+ J*2+e, B6!nA -13, Re+9on!" T69!" Co*6$, ?*eDon C9$4G !n2 $ e IGLESIA NI CRISTO, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB 2et t oners were the reg stered owners of n ne %arcels of land located n Montal"an/ & )al. In 5ece!"er 1994/ the# "egan to offer the su"ject %ro%ert es for sale. 2et t oners !ade a f nal offer to the I;'. The latter0s counsel sent a re%l# rece ved "# %et t oner Mar o C as co on 5ece!"er 24/ 1996/ stat ng that the offer was acce%ted/ "ut that the I;' was D not a!ena"le to #our %ro%osal to an undervaluat on of the total cons derat on.E In the r letter dated Ganuar# 8/ 1997/ %et t oners cla !ed that the I;' had not reall# acce%ted of the afore!ent oned re%l# on 5ece!"er 24/ 1996/ the# had alread# DcontractedE w th 'ar ssa for the sale of the sa d %ro%ert es Ddue to the a"sence of ant res%onse to the r offer fro! I;'.EMa nta n ng that a sale had "een consu!!ated/ I;' de!anded that the corres%ond ng deed "e e@ecuted n ts favor. 2et t oners refused. 2r vate res%ondents f led a c v l su t for s%ec f c %erfor!ance and da!ages aga nst %et t oners and 'ar ssa 1o!es and 5evelo%!ent L 2ro%ert es. 2end ng resolut on of %et t oners0 Mot on to 5 s! ss/ %r vate res%ondent negot ated w th 'ar ssa 1o!es wh ch cul! nated n the %urchase of the su"ject %ro%ert es of 'ar ssa 1o!es "# %r vate res%ondent. 2r vate res%ondents f led an A!ended 'o!%la nt/ dro%% ng 'ar ssa 1o!es as one of the defendants and chang ng the nature of the case to a !ere case for da!ages. 'A ruled that although %r vate res%ondent could no longer a!end ts or g nal 'o!%la nt as a !atter of r ght/ t was not %recluded that the &T' had not acted w th grave a"use of d scret on n ad! tt ng %r vate res%ondent0s a!ended 'o!%la nt. ISSUEB 5 d the 'A err n aff r! ng the two 7rders of the &T' wh ch had allowed the a!ended 'o!%la nt4 HELDB The %et t on s devo d of !er t. ,e susta n the 'A/ "ut for reasons d fferent fro! those g ven n the assa led 5ec s on. 2rel ! nar# IssueH 2ro%r et# of 'ert orar

47

Aor the wr t of 'ert orar under &ule 6. to ssue/ the %et t oner !ust show not onl# that the lower court acted w th grave a"use of d scret on/ "ut also that D there s no a%%eal/ or an# other %la n s%eed#/ and ade-uate re!ed# n the ord nar# course of law.E C nce the -uest oned 'A 5ec s on was a d s%os t on on the !er ts/ and s nce sa d 'ourt has no re!a n ng ssue to resolve/ the %ro%er re!ed# ava la"le to %et t oners was a %et t on for rev ew under &ule 4./ not &ule 6.. Ma n IssueH ad! ss on of a!ended 'o!%la nt The a!end!ent d d not %rejud ce the %et t oners or dela# the act on. Au contra re / t s !%l f ed the case and tended to e@%ed te ts d s%os t on. The A!ended 'o!%la nt "eca!e s !%l# an act on for da!ages/ s nce the cla !s for s%ec f c %erfor!ance and declarat on of null t# of the sale have "een deleted. &T' 1ad Gur sd ct on The# !a nta n that the or g nal act on or s%ec f c %erfor!ance nvolv ng %arcels of land n Montal"an/ & )al should have "een f led n the &T' of that area. Thus/ the# ch de the 'A or allegedl# ! sunderstand ng the d st nct on "etween territorial jurisdiction and venue/ there"# erroneousl# hold ng that the &T' had jur sd ct on over the or g nal 'o!%la nt/ although the venue was !%ro%erl# la d. ,e d sagree. True/ an a!end!ent cannot "e allowed when the court has no jur sd ct on over the or g nal 'o!%la nt and the %ur%ose of the a!end!ent s to confer jur sd ct on on the court. In the %resent case/ however/ the &T' had jur sd ct on "ecause the or g nal 'o!%la nt nvolved s%ec f c %erfor!ance w th da!ages.

G.R. No. 1-%33%. J*"4 1%, 1''5J NORA A. BITONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS :FIFTH DIVISION;, EUGENIA D. APOSTOL, JOSE A. APOSTOL, MR. & MS. PUBLISHING CO., LETT/ J. MAGSANOC, AND ADORACION G. NU/DA, respondents. NORA A. BITONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS :FIFTH DIVISION; !n2 EDGARDO B. ESPIRITU, respondents. FACTSB $ tong was the treasurer and !e!"er of the $o5 of Mr. L Mrs. 'or%orat on. Che f led a co!%la nt w th the C<' to hold res%ondent s%ouses A%ostol l a"le for fraud/ ! sre%resentat on/ d slo#alt#/ ev dent "ad fa th/ confl ct of nterest and ! s!anage!ent n d rect ng the affa rs of the cor%orat on to the %rejud ce of the stoc(holders. Che alleges that certa n transact ons entered nto "# the cor%orat on were not su%%orted "# an# stoc(holder0s resolut on. The co!%la nt sought to enjo n A%ostol fro! further act ng as %res dent:d rector of the cor%orat on and fro! d s"urs ng an# !one# or funds. A%ostol contends that $ tong was !erel# a holder: n:trust of the GATA shares of the cor%orat on/ hence/ not ent tled to the rel ef she %ra#s for. C<' 1ear ng 2anel ssued a wr t enjo n ng A%ostol. After hear ng the ev dence/ C<' 1ear ng 2anel d ssolved the wr t and d s! ssed the co!%la nt f led "# $ tong. $ tong a%%ealed to the C<' en "anc. The latter reversed C<' 1ear ng 2anel dec s on. A%ostol f led %et t on for rev ew w th the 'A. 'A reversed C<' en "anc rul ng hold ng that $ tong was not the owner of an# share of stoc( n the cor%orat on and therefore/ not a real %art# n nterest to %rosecute the co!%la nt. 1ence/ th s %et t on w th the C'. ISSUEB ,hether or not $ tong was the real %art# n nterest. HELDB 48

$ased on the ev dence %resented/ t could "e gleaned that $ tong was not a "ona f de stoc(holder of the cor%orat on. Ceveral cor%orate docu!ents d sclose that the true %art# n nterest was GATA. Although her "u# ng of the shares were recorded n the Ctoc( and Transfer $oo( of the cor%orat on/ and as %rov ded "# Cec. 63 of the 'or% 'ode that no transfer shall "e val d e@ce%t as "etween the %art es unt l the transfer s recorded n the "oo(s of the cor%orat on/ and u%on ts record ng the cor%orat on s "ound "# t and s esto%%ed to den# the fact of transfer of sa d shares/ th s %rov s on s not conclus ve even aga nst the cor%orat on "ut are %r !a fac e ev dence onl#. 2arol ev dence !a# "e ad! tted to su%%l# the o! ss ons n the records/ e@%la n a!" gu t es/ or show what trans% red where no records were (e%t/ or n so!e cases where such records were contrad cted. $es des/ the %rov s on env s ons a for!al cert f cate of stoc( wh ch can "e ssued onl# u%on co!%l ance w th certa n re-u s tesH *1+ cert f cates !ust "e s gned "# the %res dent or v ce %res dent/ counters gned "# the secretar# or ass stant secretar#/ and sealed w th the seal of the cor%orat on/ *2+ del ver# of the cert f cateF *3+ the %ar value/ as to %ar value shares/ or the full su"scr %t on as to no %ar value shares/ !ust "e f rst full# %a dF *4+ the or g nal cert f cate !ust "e surrendered where the %erson re-uest ng the ssuance of a cert f cate s a transferee fro! a stoc(holder. These cons derat ons are founded on the "as c %r nc %le that stoc( ssued w thout author t# and n v olat on of the law s vo d and confers no r ghts on the %erson to who! t s ssued and su"jects h ! to no l a" l t es. ,here there s an nherent lac( of %ower n the cor%orat on to ssue the stoc(/ ne ther the cor%orat on nor the %erson to who! the stoc( s ssued s esto%%ed to -uest on ts val d t# s nce an esto%%el cannot o%erate to create stoc( wh ch under the law cannot have e@ stence.

G.R. No. 115%-5 OA$obe6 5, 1''5 MARCIANA SERDONCILLO, @e$9$9one6, vs. SPOUSES FIDEL !n2 EVEL/N BENOLIRAO, MELITON CARISIMA, !n2 COURT OF APPEALS, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB 2et t oner s a tenant n the d s%uted land. In an act on to recover %ossess on f led "# the %r vate res%ondents as %urchasers of the aforesa d %ro%ert# "efore the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt/ %et t oner was ordered to vacate the %re! ses and to de!ol sh all the !%rove!ents he constructed thereon. 7n a%%eal/ %et t oner assa led the jur sd ct on of the &I7 on ground that the act on f led should have "een unlawful deta ner or forc "le entr# of wh ch the !un c %al tr al court has e@clus ve jur sd ct on. Th s s %red cated on the fact that the f nal de!and was !ade on ;ove!"er 23/1993 and the act on was f led on 5ece!"er 13/ 1993/ thus/ the one:#ear %er od has not #et ela%sed. The 'ourt of A%%eals dec d ng n favor of the %r vate res%ondents/ %et t oner nst tuted th s act on. ISSUEB ,hether the act on to recover %ossess on f led "# %r vate res%ondents s acc on %u"l c ana cogn )a"le "# the &I7 or/ unlawful deta ner or forc "le entr# cogn )a"le "# the MT'. HELDB The allegat ons n the co!%la nt are of the nature of acc on %u"l c ana of wh ch the &eg onal Tr al 'ourt has jur sd ct on. The aver!ents of the co!%la nt clearl# show that %r vate res%ondents clearl# set u% t tle to the!selves/ as "e ng the a"solute owner of the d s%uted %re! ses "# v rtue of the r Transfer 'ert f cates of T tle and %ra# that %et t oner "e ejected therefro!. There s noth ng n the co!%la nt alleg ng an# of the !eans of d s%ossess on that would const tute forc "le entr#/ nor s there an# assert on of %et t oner0s %ossess on wh ch was or g nall# lawful "ut ceased to "e so u%on the e@% rat on of the r ght to %ossess. It does not allege whether the entr# s legal or llegal. The act on therefore s ne ther one of forc "le entr# nor of unlawful deta ner "ut essent all# nvolves a d s%ute relat ve to ownersh % of land allegedl# encroached u%on "# %et t oner. It s !!ater al 49

whether or not the co!%la nt was nst tuted one !onth fro! the date of last de!and or a #ear thereafter. G.R. No. 115)%5 DeAe=be6 ), 1''5 ALLIED AGRI.BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., @e$9$9one6, vs. COURT OF APPEALS !n2 CHERR/ VALLE/ FARMS LIMITED, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB A co!%la nt was f led "# res%ondent 'herr# ?alle# for collect on of su! of !one# aga nst the %et t oner All ed Agr :$us ness for ts fa lure to %a# for the value of orders !ade and rece ved "# the latter. 'herr# ?alle# served a &e-uest for Ad! ss on of Aacts to Agr : $us ness. The latter fa led to su"! t a sworn answer to the re-uest for ad! ss on w th n the allowed %er od. Thus/ su!!ar# judg!ent ensued. Agr :$us ness alleged that 'herr# ?alle# had the "urden to %rove through ts own w tness dur ng the tr al the !atters for wh ch ad! ss ons were re-uested/ and su"se-uentl# -uest oned the su!!ar# judg!ent. ISSUEB ,hether or not res%ondent0s fa lure to answer the &e-uest for Ad! ss on shall !ean ad! ss on of the !a lers stated n the re-uest wh ch can "e the "as s for su!!ar# judg!ent. HELDB The %ur%ose of the rule govern ng re-uests for ad! ss on of facts and genu neness of docu!ents s to e@%ed te tr al and to rel eve %art es of the costs of %rov ng facts wh ch w ll not "e d s%uted on tr al and the truth of wh ch can "e ascerta ned "# reasona"le n-u r#. The "urden of aff r!at ve act on s on the %art# u%on who! not ce s served to avo d the ad! ss on rather than u%on the %art# see( ng the ad! ss on. 1ence/ when Agr : $us ness fa led to re%l# to a re-uest to ad! t/ t !a# not argue that the adverse/ %art# has the "urden of %rov ng the facts sought to "e ad! tted. Agr :$us ness0 s lence s an ad! ss on of the facts stated n the re-uest. Th s now "eco!es the "as s of a su!!ar# judg!ent.

G.R. No. 1--5%5. M!4 -), 1'''J PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO HILLADO, accused-appellant. FACTSB The %et t oner/ 2ac f c > fe Assurance 'or%. was ordered "# the tr al court to %a# the res%ondents da!ages a!ount ng to 2h% 171/828.33 n ts dec s on dated A%r l 24/1992. 2et t oner f led a not ce of a%%eal to th s or g nal dec s on wh le the res%ondents f led a !ot on for recons derat on. The !ot on for recons derat on was dec ded n favor of sa d res%ondents. In the tr al court0s !od f ed dec s on of March 11/ 1993/ the award Xof da!ages was ncreased to 2h% 4.7/1.4.33. ;ot sat sf ed/ res%ondents a%%ealed fro! the !od f ed dec s on wh le 2et t oner 2ac f c d d not. Cu"se-uentl#/ %et t oner f led ts a%%ellant0s "r ef wh ch was f led w th res%ect to the or g nal dec s on. 7n the other hand/ res%ondents w thdrew the r a%%eal to the !od f ed dec s on and !oved to d s! ss %et t oner0s a%%eal on ground that the latter d d not a%%eal fro! the !od f ed dec s on. Th s !ot on was granted "# the 'ourt of A%%eals. ISSUEB ,hether or not the res%ondents need to f le another a%%eal as regards the !od f ed dec s on. .3

HELDB The %et t oner d d not have to f le another not ce of a%%eal/ hav ng g ven not ce of ts ntent on to a%%eal the or g nal dec s on. 2et t oner0s fa lure to a%%eal fro! the a!ended order d d not render ts %r or a%%eal fro! the or g nal dec s on neffect ve. The !od f ed dec s on !ore than dou"led %et t oner0s l a" l t#/ and there s no reason to "el eve that %et t oner0s fa lure to a%%eal therefro! n an# wa# nd cated ts acce%tance thereof. C nce the dec s on as !od f ed su"stant all# ncreased %et t oner0s l a" l t#/ the log cal nference s that %et t oner would all the !ore want to a%%eal fro! the dec s on !od f ed. To den# %et t oner0s a%%eal on the order to s gn f# ts o"ject on to the !od f ed dec s on would "e to %ut %re! u! on techn cal t es at the e@%ense of a just resolut on of the case. 5 s! ssal of a%%eals %urel# on techn cal grounds s frowned u%on and the rules of %rocedure ought not to "e a%%l ed n a ver# r g d/ techn cal sense/ for the# are ado%ted to hel% secure/ not overr de/ su"stant al just ce/ and there"# defeat the r ver# a !s.

G.R. No. 1-55&% Se@$e=be6 -3, 1''5 ASIAVEST LIMITED, @e$9$9one6, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS !n2 ANTONIO HERAS, 6es@on2en$s. FACTSB In an act on for a s%ec f c a!ount of !one#/ %et t oner As avest > ! ted o"ta ned a favora"le judg!ent fro! the 1ong Tong 'ourt aga nst %r vate res%ondent/ Anton o 1eras. In v ew of Uhe fact that the %r vate res%ondent s now res d ng n the 2h l %% nes/ an act on was f led n order to see( enforce!ent of the sa d judg!ent. 2r vate res%ondent. n h s answer/ ad! tted the e@ stence of the fore gn judg!ent "ut o%%osed ts enforce!ent on the ground of fore gn court0s lac( of jur sd ct on over h s %erson. It a%%ears that su!!ons ssued "# the 1ong Tong 'ourt was served through defendant0s law off ce wh le he was alread# n the 2h l %% nes. 1e contended that not ce sent outs de the state to a non:res dent s unava l ng to g ve jur sd ct on n a %ersonal act on aga nst h ! for recover# of !one#. The &T' held that the 1ong Tong 'ourt judg!ent should "e recogn )ed and g ven effect n th s jur sd ct on for fa lure of 1eras to overco!e the legal %resu!%t on n favor of fore gn judg!ent. The 'ourt of A%%eals reversed the dec s on on the ground of lac( of jur sd ct on. 1ence/ th s %et t on. ISSUEB ,hether or not the 1ong Tong 'ourt ac-u red jur sd ct on. HELDB The 1ong Tong 'ourt d d not ac-u re jur sd ct on hence judg!ent s not enforcea"le. Although a fore gn judg!ent s a %resu!%t ve ev dence of a r ght as "etween the %art es w th n the 2h l %% nes/ t !a# "e re%elled "# ev dence of want of jur sd ct on. C nce the e@%ert w tness fa led to test f# on the law of 1ong Tong concern ng serv ce of su!!ons/ t w ll thus "e %resu!ed that the 1ong Tong law on the !atter s s ! lar to 2h l %% ne law. In an act on n %ersona! where n the defendant s a non: res dent who does not voluntar l# su"! t h !self to the author t# of the court/ %ersonal serv ce of su!!ons w th n the state s essent al to the ac-u s t on of jur sd ct on/ If he s not %resent there n/ the court cannot ac-u re jur sd ct on over h s %erson and therefore cannot val dl# tr# and dec de the case aga nst h !. Accord ngl#/ s nce 1eras was not a res dentH of 1ong Tong and the act on aga nst h ! was one n %ersona!/ su!!ons should have "een %ersonall# served on h ! wh le n 1ong Tong. The e@traterr tor al serv ce n the 2h l %% nes was therefore nval d and d d not confer on the 1ong Tong 'ourt jur sd ct on over h s %erson.

.1