Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE
CABILI V. BALINDONG
FACTS:
Atty. Tomas Ong Cabili (Atty. Cabili) was
counsel of the Heirs of Jesus Ledesma in the
latters action for damages against the Mindanao
State University (MSU) and others arising from
the death of the late Jesus Ledesma in Civil Case
06-254 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan
City, Branch 6. The RTC rendered judgment
against the defendants, including MSU, ordering
them to pay damages to the Heirs. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC
decision which became final and executory.
Eventually, on motion of the Heirs, on
March 6, 2009 the RTC Branch 6 caused the
issuance of a writ of execution against the
defendants. The Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) belatedly filed an opposition to the
issuance of the writ, resulting in its denial on the
ground of mootness of the motion. Meantime,
the Sheriff of Branch 6, Sheriff Gerard Peter Gaje,
served a notice of garnishment on MSUs funds
with the Land Bank of the Philippines Marawi
City Branch by reason of MSUs failure to obey
the writ.
On April 1, 2009, to prevent seizure of its
Land Bank deposits that it needed for
operations, MSU filed a special civil action of
prohibition and mandamus with application for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO) and, subsequently, a preliminary
injunction before the RTC Branch 8, presided
over by respondent acting presiding judge, Judge
Rasad G. Balindong, against Land Bank and
Sheriff Gaje.
In its petition, MSU averred that it is a
state university, funded by appropriations law
enacted by Congress; that despite OSG
opposition to the issuance of a writ of execution
against it, such writ was issued and Sheriff Gaje
ISSUE:
WON CA is wrong in applying the Doctrine of
Primary Jurisdiction.
HELD:
NO. Under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, courts must refrain from
determining a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by
the latter, where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion
FACTS:
After one month from the effectivity of
the Judiciary Act of 1948, spouses Tijam filed a
collection case against spouses Sibonghanoy.
The preliminary attachment filed by the plaintiff
was dissolve by a counterbond posted by the
defendants through a surety company. After
being duly served with summons the defendants
filed their answer in which, after making some
admissions and denials of the material
averments of the complaint, they interposed a
counterclaim. This counterclaim was answered
by the plaintiffs.
HELD:
NO. The issue of jurisdiction was first
raised in the Court of Appeals. In the Court of
Agrarian Relations, the PNB filed an answer
setting up its special and affirmative defenses
with counterclaim. The PNB through its counsel
and representative actively participated in all the
hearings. In fact, the parties agreed upon the
issues of the case and the PNB never raised the
issue on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the
Court of Agrarian Relations.
On this score alone, the PNB is precluded
from raising for the first time on appeal the issue
of lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian
Relations over C.A.R. Case No. 494. Citing the
earlier case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (23 SCRA
29):
While petitioners could have prevented
the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over
the case by seasonably taking exception thereto,
they instead invoked the very same jurisdiction
by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief
from it. What is more, they participated in the
trial of the case by cross-examining respondent
Planas. Upon this premise, petitioners cannot
now be allowed belatedly to adopt an
inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction
of the court to which they had submitted
themselves voluntarily.
ATWEL V. CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE
FACTS:
Assemblyman Emilio Melgazo founded
and
organized
Concepcion
Progressive
Association (CPA) in Hilongos, Leyte. The
organization aimed to provide livelihood to and
generate income for his supporters.
Melgazo was elected President. He then
bought a parcel of land in behalf of the
association. The property was later on converted
into a wet market where agricultural, livestock
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Atty. Restituto Cudiamat and his brother
Perfecto were the registered co-owners of a 320
square meter parcel of land in Balayan,
Batangas, which was registered in Nasugbu,
Batangas. Restituto, who resided in Ozamiz City
with his wife, entrusted the custody of the title
to who Perfecto.
In 1979, Perfecto, without the
knowledge and consent of Restituto, obtained a
loan from Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc
with the said property as a security. On June 19,
1991 the bank foreclosed the property.
In 1998, as Perfectos widow Corazon
was being evicted from the property, she and
spouses Restituto and Erlinda filed on August 9,
1999 before the RTC of Balayan a complaint "for
quieting of title with damages" against the bank
and the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu, assailing
the mortgage as being null and void as they did
not authorize the encumbrance of the property.
ISSUE:
WON the RTC of Balayan had no
jurisdiction over the petitioners complaint.
HELD:
Estoppel bars the bank from raising the
issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Balayan RTC.
The Balayan RTC had jurisdiction over the
complaint for quieting of title. The present case
is an exception to the rule that lack of jurisdiction
on the subject matter can be raised at any time
and is not lost by estoppel by laches. To compel
petitioners to re-file and relitigate their claims
before the Nasugbu RTC when the parties had
already been given the opportunity to present
their respective evidence in a full-blown trial
before the Balayan RTC which had, in fact,
decided petitioners complaint (for about two
FACTS:
The City of Dumaguete, through Mayor
Felipe Antonio B. Remollo (Remollo), filed before
the RTC an Application for Original Registration
of Title over a parcel of land with improvements,
located at Barangay Looc, City of Dumaguete,
under the Property Registration Decree. The
application was docketed as LRC Case No. N-201.
In an Order dated October 23, 1998, the
RTC noted that the records of the case shows
that the annexes lack the following copies. The
application did not also state the number of the
lot sought to be registered, the number of
parcels applied for, the improvements found
thereon, and indicate whether it claims a portion
of the road which serves as a boundary line.
ISSUE:
10
INIEGO V. PURUGANAN
FACTS:
Fokker Santos filed a complaint for
quasi-delict and damages against Jimmy T.
Pinion, driver of the truck involved in the traffic
accident, and against Artemio Iniego, owner of
the said truck and employer of Pinion. The
complaint stemmed from a vehicular accident in
1999, where a freight truck driven by Pinion hit
PRs jitney which Santos was driving at the time
of the accident. The total amount of damages
claimed is P490,000
Santos filed a Motion to Declare Iniego
in default for failure of the latter to file his
answer within the final extended period. Iniego
filed a Motion to Admit and a Motion to Dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the cause of action.
Judge Guillermo G. Purganan of the RTC
issued the assailed Omnibus Order, which ruled:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court made a
serious error by rendering judgment on issue not
presented in pleadings.
HELD:
It is also a general principle of law that a
court cannot set itself in motion, nor has it power
to decide questions except as presented by the
parties in their pleadings. Anything that is
decided beyond them is coram non-judice and
void. Therefore where a court enters a judgment
or awards relief beyond the prayer of the
complaint or the scope of its allegations the
excessive relief is not merely irregular but is void
for want of jurisdiction, and is open to collateral
attack.
The appellate court also ruled that a
judgment of a court upon a subject within its
general jurisdiction, but which is not brought
before it by any statement or claim of the
parties, and is foreign to the issues submitted for
its determination, is a nullity. (Emphasis
supplied)
Pursuant to the foregoing principle, it is
a serious error for the trial court to have
rendered judgment on issues not presented in
the pleadings as it was beyond its jurisdiction to
do so. The amendment of the petition to reflect
the new issues and claims against Jose was,
therefore, indispensable so as to authorize the
court to act on the issue of whether the marriage
of Jose and Adriana was bigamous and the
determination of the amount that should have
been awarded for the support of John Paul.
When the trial court rendered judgment beyond
the allegations contained in the copy of the
petition served upon Jose, the Pasay RTC had
acted in excess of its jurisdiction and deprived
petitioner Lam of due process.
Insofar as the declaration of nullity of
the marriage between Adriana and Jose for
19
20
HILARIO V. SALVADOR
FACTS:
Petitioners herein are co-owners of a
parcel of land located in Romblon. In 1996, they
filed a complaint with the RTC of Romblon
against herein, respondent, alleging that as coowners, they are entitled to possession of the
lot, and that respondent constructed his house
thereon without their knowledge and refused to
vacate the property despite demands to do so.
They prayed for the private respondent to vacate
the property and restore possession thereof to
them.
The complaint, however, failed to allege
the assessed value of the land. Nevertheless,
petitioners were able to present during trial the
most recent tax declaration, which shows that
the assessed value of the property was Php
5,950.00. The respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
because of the failure to allege the value of the
land. The motion was denied. Respondent then
files an Answer, traversing the material
allegations of the complaint, contending that
petitioners had no cause of action against him
since the property in dispute was the conjugal
property of his grandparents, the spouses
Salustiano Salvador and Concepcion MazoSalvador.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners.
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision, holding
that the action was one for the recovery of
ownership and possession of real property and
that absent any allegation in the complaint of
the assessed value of the property, the MTC had
exclusive jurisdiction over the action (citing
Sec.33 of RA 7691). The CA then ordered the
refilling of the case in the proper court.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over
the action?
21
HELD:
No. Petitioner argues that the RTC has
jurisdiction since their action is an accion
reinvindicatoria, an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Thus, regardless of the
assessed value of the subject property, exclusive
jurisdiction falls within the said court.
This argument is without merit. The
jurisdiction of the court over an action involving
title to or possession of land is now determined
by the assessed value of the said property and
not the market value thereof. In the case at bar,
the complaint does not contain allegation stating
the assessed value of the property subject of the
complaint. The court cannot take judicial notice
of the assessed or market value of land.
The Court noted that during the trial, the
petitioners adduced in evidence a tax
declaration, showing that the assessed value of
the property in 1991 was Php 5, 950.00. The
petitioners, however, did not bother to adduce
in evidence the tax declaration containing the
assessed value of the property when they filed
their complaint in 1996.
Even assuming that the assessed value
of the property in 1991 was the same in 19951996, the MTC, and not the RTC has jurisdiction
over the action of the petitioners, since the case
involved to or possession of real property with
an assessed value of less than Php 20,000.00. As
the CA had held that the determining
jurisdictional element for the accion
reinvindicatoria is, as RA 7196 discloses, the
assessed value of the property in question. For
properties in the provinces, the RTC has
jurisdiction if the assessed value exceeds Php
20,000.00 and the MTC, if the value is Php
20,000.00 or below.
An assessed value can have reference
only to the tax rolls in the municipality where the
property is located, and is contained in the tax
declaration. In the case at bench, the most
22
23