You are on page 1of 5

Spouses

Eulogia Manila and Ramon Manila v Spouses Ederlinda Gallardo-Manzo


and Daniel Manzo

Date: Sept 7 2011
Ponente: J. Villarama Jr.

Facts:
• June 30 1982- Ederlinda leased 2 parcels of land situated along Real St.
Manuyo Las Pinas to Eulogia for 10 years for 2000 pesos per month on
the first 2 years and will increase by 10% every after 2 years. There is
also an option to buy 2 years from the execution of the contract for
150,000 pesos
• The lease expired but Eulogia continued in possession of the property
despite a formal demand letter to vacate and pay rental arrears.
• Eulogia argued that she exercised the option to buy and that she is the
owner of the property
• It was brought to the Barangay for conciliation but failed
• Filed to MeTc and Ederlina won, court ordering to vacate and pay rental
arrears and proper compensation for the continued possession
• Eulogia appealed to RTC and reversed MeTc and ordering Ederlina to
execute a deed of absolute sale after full payment
o RTC found that Eulogia indeed exercised the option but due to
foreclosure proceedings of Eulogia with Rural Bank of Bombon
that Ederlina advised her to withhold payment Eulogia tried to
tender until the foreclosure is resolved.
o Also let Eulogioa construct a building of strong materials
• Ederlina filed MR buut denied by RTC for filing beyond the 15 day period.
Consequently, RTC decision became final and executor
• Ederlina then filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision in the CA
on the basis of RTC’s appellate jurisdiction in ejectment cases is who is
entitled to the physical possession of real property and the only judgeent
it can render in favor of Eulogia is recover his costs, which is conclusive
only on the issue of possession and does not affect the ownership of the
land
o To change possession, it must have been a case of specific
performance falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC
o Petition for annulment became the only available remedy as
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief etc. are
no longer available without their fault
• CA granted petition and reinstated MeTC decision
o CA thought that in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction was to
confine itself to the issue of WON Eulogia have a valid cause of
action for ejectment but instead of just annulling said decision, it
went further and required Ederlina to sell the land
o the respondent court materially changed the nature of
petitioners’ cause of action by deciding the question of
ownership even as the appealed case involves only the issue
of prior physical possession which, in every ejectment suit, is
the only question to be resolved
o It converted the issue of specific performance under its original
and not appellate jurisdiction
o Appellate jurisdiction only revises and corrects the proceedings in
a cause already instituted and does not create that cause (Marbury
v Madison)
o RTC clearly acted without jurisdiction
• Eulogia MR denied and now files before SC

Issues:
WON CA committed GAD in annulling RTC decision despite ordinary remedies
were lost through the fault of Ederlina (YES)

WON CA committed GAD when it annulled the judgement on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction when it has not been shown that the RTC had no jurisdiction over
the person of Ederlina or the subject matter of the claim (YES)

Held:
I.
o Petition for annulment of judgements or final orders can only be availed
when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner
o It is a remedy granted under exceptional circumstances and is never
resorted to as a substitute for the party’s own negligence.
o The only grounds provided in sec 2 Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction
o The excuse of Ederlina that his counsel was dying and got angry
whenever asked about the update of the case and only replaced
when the lawyer died is untenable
o Duty of party litigants to always monitor the progress of the case
o Such negligence binds the client
II
o Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgement based on lack
of jurisdiction must show not merley an abuse of jurisidictional discretion
byt an absolute lack of jurisdiction
o Meaning: the court should not have taken cognizance of the
petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over
the subject matter
o Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is
conferred by law
o A judgement on forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue
than right of possession and not determining who is the owner. In this
case, RTC acted in excess of authority
o Jurisdiction is not the same as exercise of jurisdiction.
o Jurisdiction = authority to decide a cause and not the decision
rendered therein
o Ground for annulment is absence or no jurisdiction because the law does
not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter
o Ybanez v CA:
o Clearly then, when the RTC took cognizance of petitioners’
appeal from the adverse decision of the MTC in the ejectment
suit, it (RTC) was unquestionably exercising its appellate
jurisdiction as mandated by law. Perforce, its decision may
not be annulled on the basis of lack of jurisdiction as it has,
beyond cavil, jurisdiction to decide the appeal
o Petition for review should have been proper before the CA, before it
became final and executor
o Their inaction and neglect to pursue available remedies to set aside the
RTC decision for such length of time, without any acceptable explanation
other than the word of a former counsel who already passed away,
constitutes unreasonable delay warranting the presumption that they
have declined to assert their right over the leased premises which
continued to be in the possession of the petitioners. Clearly, respondents’
petition to annul the final RTC decision is barred under the equitable
doctrine of laches.
o Petition for review on certiorari GRANTED


Editha Padlan v Elenita Dinglasan and Felicisimo Dinglasan

Date: Mar 20, 2013

Ponente: J. Peralta

Facts:

o Elenita was the registered owner of a parcel of land designated as Lot 625
of the Limay Cadastre with an aggregate area of 82,972 sq m
o While on board a jeepney, Elenita’s mother Lillia, had a conversation with
Maura regarding the sale of the land
o Believing that she was a real estate agent, Lillia borrowed from Elenita
the TCT and gave it to Maura
o Maura subdivided the lots A-O under Elenita and her husband Felicisimo
o Through the falsified deed, Maura sold it to diff. buyers
o Lot K was sold to Lorna Ong and a few months after sold to Editha Padlan
for 4,000 pesos
o When Elenita and Felicisimo found out, they demanded to surrender the
possession but to no avail
o Summons was serverd to petitioner through her mother Anita Padlan
o Filed before the RTC Balanga Bataan for the cancellation of the certificate
o On jan 17 2000 Editha filed through counsel an opposition to declare
defendant in default with motion to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction
over the person of defendant
o She argues No jurisdiction over her person as the substituted
service was through her mother and not her directly
o She has been residing in Japan after she married a hapon and
comes home to PH once every 2 years
o The brother testified and submitted copies of passport etc of sister but
RTC denied motion and declared Editha in default. Trial ensued
o RTC- declared Editha buyer in good faith – dismiss
o Elenita filed before CA and reversed RTC – cancelled TCT of Editha
o Buyer should have conducted further inquiry before buying as
there is bad faith from Lorna because 5000 sqm for only 4,000
o TCTs fraudulently issued
o Editha filed MR for lack of merit and failure to acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case and person of Editha
o CA denied motion
o CA concluded that the rationale for the exception made in Tijam v
Sibonghanoy was present
o When RTC denied Editha’s motion, to dismiss, she did not move for
a reconsideration nor availed of any remedies provided by the
rules. She was silent and brought it back again when adverse
decision was rendered against her

Issues:

WON Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case (NO)

WON Editha was a buyer in good faith and for value (DID NOT ANSWER)

Held:

o Editha argues that sec 15 of Rule 14 states, when the defendant does not
reside in the pilippines and the subject of the action is the property within
the Philippines, service may be effected out of the Philippines by personal
service or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Instead it
was given to the mother. Thus, no jurisdiction over the person
o Amount alleged on the property was only 4,000 pesos

SC:

o BP 128 sec 33 (3) RTC value of property exceeds 20,000 pesos or 50,000
pesos in metro manila. Below is the lower courts
o Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter
of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the
complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as well
as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by
the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all
or some of the claims asserted therein
o What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The
averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to
be consulted
o The action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the
lawful owner of the subject lot, jurisdiction over which is determined by
the assessed value of such lot
o The only basis for the value of the land was the 4,000 pesos which was the
amount allegedly sold for as there is not even a tax declaration. Thus, MTC
and not RTC has jurisdiction over the action. All proceedings in RTC are
null and void
o GRANTED