Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 | Page
FACTS:
In the month of February 1964, petitioners Roy P.
Villasor, as administrator of the intestate estate of the
spouses Manuel M. Mejia and Gloria Lazatin (Special
Proceedings No. 48181 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila), together with his co-petitioners Angelina Mejia
Lopez and Aurora Mejia Villasor and other heirs of said
spouses, entered into a contract with respondent Trinidad
T. Lazatin for the development and subdivision of three
parcels of land belonging to said intestate estate.
Subsequently Lazatin transferred his rights under the
contract to the Terra Development Corporation. Months
later, petitioners and other co-heirs filed an action in the
Court of First Instance of Quezon City for the rescission
of said contract for alleged gross and willful violation of
its terms.
Upon petition of the parties thus charged, the City Fiscal
of Angeles reinvestigated the case on March 7, 1965 to
give them an opportunity to present exculpatory
evidence, and after the conclusion of the reinvestigation
the parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case
mainly on the ground that the City Court of Angeles had
no jurisdiction over the offense because the private
document that contained the alleged false statement of
2 | Page
3 | Page
ISSUE
PEOPLE V. PADERNA
GR NO. L-28518, JANUARY 29, 1968
FACTS
Lorenzo Paderna y Gamboa was prosecuted in the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental for unlawful
possession of four packs of untaxed imported cigarettes
known locally as "blue seal" cigarettes.
HELD
The actuation of the trial court was not legally
permissible especially because the theory on which it
proceeded involved factual considerations neither
touched upon the pleadings nor made the subject of
evidence at the trial. Rule 6, Section 1, is quite explicit
in providing that "pleadings are the written allegations of
the parties of their respective claims and defenses
submitted to the court for trial and judgment." This rule
has been consistently applied and adhered to by the
courts.
The subject matter of any given case is
determined ... by the nature and
character of the pleadings submitted by
the parties to the court for trial and
judgment. Belandres vs. Lopez Sugar
Central Mill Co., Inc., 97 Phil. 100, 103.
It is a fundamental principle that
judgments must conform to both the
pleadings and the proof, and must be in
accordance with the theory of the action
upon which the pleadings were framed
and the case was tried; that a party can
no more succeed upon a case proved.
but not alleged, than upon one alleged
but not proved." (Ramon v. Ortuzar, 89
Phil. 730, 742)
It is a well-known principle in procedure
that courts of justice have no jurisdiction
or power to decide a question not in
issue." (Lim Toco vs. Go Pay, 80 Phil.
166)
A judgment going outside the issues and
purporting to adjudicate something upon
which the parties were not heard, is not
merely irregular, but extrajudicial and
invalid." (Salvante v. Cruz, 88 Phil. 236,
244.)
4 | Page
xxx
xxx
5 | Page
order of denial and from the one denying its motion for
reconsideration.
ESTOPPEL BY LACHES
TIJAM V. SIBONGHANOY, et al.,
GR NO. L-21450, April 15, 1968
FACTS
The spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog
commenced filed a civil case in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu against the spouses Magdaleno
Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio to recover from them the
sum of P1,908.00, with legal interest thereon from the
date of the filing of the complaint until the whole
obligation is paid, plus costs. As prayed for in the
complaint, a writ of attachment was issued by the court
against defendants' properties, but the same was soon
dissolved upon the filing of a counter-bond by
defendants and the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc.
hereinafter referred to as the Surety, on the 31st of the
same month.
The Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and, after the same had become final and executory,
upon motion of the latter, the Court issued a writ of
execution against the defendants. The writ having been
returned unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the
issuance of a writ of execution against the Surety's bond,
against which the Surety filed a written opposition upon
two grounds, namely, (1) Failure to prosecute and (2)
Absence of a demand upon the Surety for the payment of
the amount due under the judgment. Upon these grounds
the Surety prayed the Court not only to deny the motion
for execution against its counter-bond but also the
following affirmative relief : "to relieve the herein
bonding company of its liability, if any, under the bond
in question" The Court denied this motion on the ground
solely that no previous demand had been made on the
Surety for the satisfaction of the judgment. Thereafter
the necessary demand was made, and upon failure of the
Surety to satisfy the judgment, the plaintiffs filed a
second motion for execution against the counterbond.
On the date set for the hearing thereon, the Court, upon
motion of the Surety's counsel, granted the latter a period
of five days within which to answer the motion. Upon its
failure to file such answer, the Court granted the motion
for execution and the corresponding writ was issued.
Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the
ground that the same was issued without the required
summary hearing provided for in Section 17 of Rule 59
of the Rules of Court. As the Court denied the motion,
the Surety appealed to the Court of Appeals from such
ISSUE
Whether the Surety Company can still question the
jurisdiction of the trial court?
HELD
As already stated, the action was commenced in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu on July 19, 1948, that is,
almostfifteen years before the Surety filed its motion to
dismiss on January 12, 1963 raising the question of lack
of jurisdiction for the first time.
It must be remembered that although the action,
originally, was exclusively against the Sibonghanoy
spouses the Surety became a quasi-party therein since
July 31, 1948 when it filed a counter-bond for the
dissolution of the writ of attachment issued by the court
of origin. Since then, it acquired certain rights and
assumed specific obligations in connection with the
pending case, in accordance with sections 12 and 17,
Rule 57, Rules of Court (Bautista vs. Joaquin, 46 Phil.
885; Kimpang & Co. vs. Javier, 65 Phil. 170).
Upon the filing of the first motion for execution against
the counter-bond the Surety not only filed a written
opposition thereto praying for its denial but also asked
for an additional affirmative relief that it be relieved
of its liability under the counter-bond upon the grounds
relied upon in support of its opposition lack of
jurisdiction of the court a quo not being one of them.
Then, at the hearing on the second motion for execution
against the counter-bond, the Surety appeared, through
counsel, to ask for time within which to file an answer or
opposition thereto. This motion was granted, but instead
of such answer or opposition, the Surety filed the motion
to dismiss mentioned heretofore.
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a
question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus
we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by
record, and of estoppel by laches.
Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
6 | Page
Figueroa vs People
July 14, 2008
Facts:
On July 8, 1994, an information for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide was filed against the petitioner
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan. Trial
on the merits ensued and on August 19, 1998, the trial
court convicted the petitioner as charged. In his appeal
before the CA, the petitioner questioned, among others,
for the first time, the trial courts jurisdiction.The
appellate court, however, in the challenged decision,
considered the petitioner to have actively participated in
the trial and to have belatedly attacked the jurisdiction of
the RTC; thus, he was already estopped by laches from
asserting the trial courts lack of jurisdiction. Finding no
other ground to reverse the trial courts decision, the CA
affirmed the petitioners conviction but modified the
penalty imposed and the damages awarded.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner can still assail the issue of
jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling:
Yes, as Supreme Court noted; the jurisdiction of a court
over the subject-matter of the action is a matter of law
and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the
parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised
at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.The
general rule is that: a courts lack of jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.
The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and
lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take
cognizance of and to render judgment on the action.
Moreover, jurisdiction is determined by the averments of
the complaint, not by the defenses contained in the
answer.
Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the
courts absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes
in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu of
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.Applying the said doctrine to the
instant case, the petitioner is in no way estopped by
laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC,
considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal
before the appellate court.
7 | Page
Facts:
Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder
and president of PROMAT Construction Development
Corporation (PROMAT) which was engaged in the
construction business. Private respondents Nestor V.
Agustin was the incumbent District Engineering District
(FMED) when he allegedly committed the offenses for
which he was administratively charged in the Office in
the office of the Ombudsman.Promat participated in the
bidding for government construction project including
those under the FMED, and private respondent,
reportedly taking advantage of his official position,
inveigled petitioner into an amorous relationship. Their
affair lasted for some time, in the course of which
private respondents gifted PROMAT with public works
contracts and interceded for it in problems concerning
the same in his office.Later, misunderstanding and
unpleasant incidents developed between the parties and
when petitioner tried to terminate their relationship,
private respondent refused and resisted her attempts to
do so to the extent of employing acts of harassment,
intimidation and threats. She eventually filed the
aforementioned administrative case against him.
Issue:
8 | Page
Facts:
Respondent Baltazar N. Pacleb and his late first wife,
Angelita Chan, are the registered owners of an 18,000square meter parcel of land in Barrio Langcaan,
Dasmarias, Cavite. In 1992, the Langcaan Property
became the subject of three (3) documents purporting to
transfer its ownership. On February 27, 1992, a Deed of
Absolute Sale5 was entered into between Spouses
Baltazar N. Pacleb and Angelita Chan and Rebecca Del
Rosario. On May 7, 1992, a Deed of Absolute Sale 6 was
entered into between Rebecca Del Rosario and Ruperto
L. Javier (Javier). On November 10, 1992, a Contract to
Sell7 was entered into between Javier and petitioner
spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Ong Yu. In their
contract, petitioner spouses Yu agreed to pay Javier a
total consideration of P900,000. Six hundred thousand
pesos (P600,000) (consisting ofP200,000 as previous
payment and P400,000 to be paid upon execution of the
contract) was acknowledged as received by Javier
and P300,000 remained as balance. Javier undertook to
deliver possession of the Langcaan Property and to sign
a deed of absolute sale within thirty (30) days from
execution of the contract.
All the aforementioned sales were not registered.
On April 23, 1993, petitioner spouses Yu filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, a Complaint 8 for
specific performance and damages against Javier
Issue
Whether or not the said action is a quasi in rem.
Ruling:
No. The aim and object of an action determine its nature
and purpose. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding
to enforce personal rights and obligations brought
against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the
person, although it may involve his right to, or the
exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to
compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with
the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in
personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court,
some responsibility or liability directly upon the person
of the defendant. It has been held that an action in
Facts:
BienvenidoAricayos alleges that he started working as
Operations Manager of petitioner St. Martin Funeral
Home on February 6, 1995. However, there was no
contract of employment executed between him and
petitioner nor was his name included in the semimonthly payroll.
On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his
employment for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00
which was intended for payment by petitioner of its
value added tax (VAT) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR).
Petitioner on the other hand claims that private
respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of
AmelitaMalabed, the owner of petitioner St. Martin's
Funeral Home. Sometime in 1995, private respondent,
who was formerly working as an overseas contract
worker, asked for financial assistance from the mother of
Amelita. Since then, as an indication of gratitude, private
respondent voluntarily helped the mother of Amelita in
overseeing the business.
Amelita, after the death of her mother then made some
changes in the business operation and private respondent
9 | Page
10 | P a g e