Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jurisdiction Case 1: Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R. BAUTISTA V. LINDO, MARCH 10, 2014, G.R. No. 208232
Jurisdiction Case 1: Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R. BAUTISTA V. LINDO, MARCH 10, 2014, G.R. No. 208232
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject In this case, since the total selling price is less than 20,000 it
matter? appears that MTC has jurisdiction over the case, however it is
RULING: The petition is meritorious. Jurisdiction of the RTCs incorrect since the reacquisition of the lot is but incidental to
is provided in Sec. 19 of BP 129, which reads: and offshoot of the exercise of the right to repurchase the lot in
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil cases. – RTCs shall exercise question and is not the principal or main relief or remedy
exclusive jurisdiction: sought.
1. In all civil actions which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
Court (MTC). Since the case was filed with the RTC, a second
level court, the RTC’s decision should be rendered void for
CASE 2: INOCENCIA TAGALOG, Petitioner, lack of jurisdiction over the case.
vs. MARIA LIM VDA. DE GONZALEZ, GAUDENCIA L. Issue: The main issue for our resolution iswhether the Regional
BUAGAS, RANULFO Y. LIM, DON L. CALVO, SUSAN Trial Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
C. SANTIAGO, DINA C. ARANAS, and RUFINA C. action.
RAMIREZ, Respondents. Ruling: The jurisdiction of a particular court is determined by
Facts: On 5 February 2003, respondents Maria Lim Vda. de the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the
Gonzalez, Gaudencia L. Buagas, Ranulfo Y. Lim, Don L. allegations in the complaint. In order to determine whether the
Calvo, Susan C. Santiago, Dina C. Aranas, and Rufina C. lower court had jurisdiction, it is necessary to first ascertain the
Ramirezfiled with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo nature of the complaint filed before it.It is clear that the case
City, Cebu, Branch 29, a Complaint4 for Recovery of involves only the issue of physical possession or unlawful
Possession, Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with a Prayer detainer as defined in Section 1 Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
for a Temporary Restraining Order with Damages and In De Leon v. CA, we held that unlawful detainer is the
Attorney’s Fees was filed against petitioner Inocencia Tagalog withholding by a person from another of the possession of a
(Tagalog). Respondents alleged that Tagalog occupied a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the
portion of the land as lessee and paid rent on a month to month expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold
basis by virtue of a verbal contract. Tagalog built a house with possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied. An
light materials on the land and when a strong typhoon hit Cebu, ejectment suit is brought before the MTC to recover not
Tagalog’s house was damaged. Thereafter, respondents alleged possession de jure but physical possession only or possession
that Tagalog discontinued payingthe rent and stopped de facto, where dispossession has lasted for not more than one
inhabiting the house. Respondents informed Tagalog to vacate year. Clearly, the RTC erred in not dismissing the case before
the premises asserting that the verbal contract of lease was it.1âwphi1 Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of the court
deemed terminated upon the expiration of the monthly to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court has no
contract. However, Tagalog refused to vacate claiming that she jurisdiction over the subject matter. In sum, since respondents'
was still a lessee.The RTC ruled that, in the complaint, complaint should have been filed with the MTC, the RTC
respondents prayed for the recovery of possession of the leased seriously erred in proceeding with the case. The proceedings
property as owners. Thus, the issue of ownership, which was before a court without jurisdiction, including its decision, are
within the original jurisdiction of the court was primordial and null and void. It then follows that the appeal brought before the
the prayer for eviction was merely incidental there being no appellate court, as well as the decisions or resolutions
written contract of lease between the parties.Petitioner promulgated in accordance with said appeal, is without force
contends that the subject of the action is for unlawful detainer, and effect.
thus cognizable by a first level court or the Municipal Trial
CASE 3: EDUARDO D. MONSANTO, DECOROSO D. restructured and that Eduardo had commenced paying monthly
MONSANTO, SR., and REV. FR. PASCUAL D. amortizations; that as a result of the restructuring, Pag-IBIG is
MONSANTO, JR., Petitioners, withdrawing its Petition for Extra-judicial Foreclosure; and that
vs. LEONCIO LIM and LORENZO DE GUZMAN, it is no longer interested in pursuing an administrative action
Respondents. September 17, 2014, G.R. No. 178911 against De Guzman. Leoncio opposed Pag-IBIG’s
Facts: manifestation. Leoncio filed a Manifestation with Ex-Parte
Flordelis Menzon, Regional Director of the Home Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession claiming that the
Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG), requested the reglementary period had elapsed without Eduardo redeeming
intervention of Executive Judge Monsanto of the Regional the subject property; as such, he is already entitled to the
Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar on the alleged anomalous issuance of a writ of possession. RTC finds that the instant
auction sale conducted by Sheriff IV Lorenzo De Guzman. motion to lift writ of execution and notice to vacate the
According to Pag-IBIG, De Guzman previously acceded to its [premises] is devoid of merit, hence denied. The motion for
request to move the date of the auction sale to January 20, issuance of writ of possession filed by Leoncio Lim through
2004; however, to its surprise, the sale proceeded as originally counsel Atty. Labid being meritorious is hereby ordered
scheduled on January 15, 2004. Pag-IBIG also claimed that the GRANTED, hence let a writ of possession be issued
winning bid ofLeoncio Lim in the amount of P500,000.00 was immediately in favor of Mr. Leoncio Lim purchaser in good
grossly disadvantageous to the government considering that the faith. CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
outstanding loan obligations of the mortgagor, Eduardo RTC.
Monsanto, was more than the bid amount. Executive Judge Ruling:
Monsanto refrained from acting on the letter considering that The Petition is dismissed. “Filing the appropriate initiatory
Eduardo is his relative; instead he re-assigned the same to pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest a
Judge Usman. RTC conducted a hearing; Atty. Cesar Lee trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Section 5,
argued on behalf of Pag-IBIG; and Pascual Monsanto appeared Rule 1 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that “[a] civil
on behalf of Eduardo. Judge Usman noted that no formal action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in
petition or complaint was actually filed which presents a court.” Moreover, “[e]very ordinary civil action must be based
judicial issue; moreover, the acts complained of partake of on a cause of action.” In this case, records show that no formal
administrative matter. Consequently, Judge Usman referred the complaint or petition was filed in court. There being no proper
matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for further initiatory pleading filed, then the RTC Branch 28 did not
action. Pascual filed with the OCA a Motion to Lift Writ of acquire jurisdiction over the matter/case. We have also noted
Execution and Notice to Vacate. The OCA directed Judge that no docket fees were paid before the trial court. Section 1,
Usman to conduct an investigation and take action on he Rule 141 of the Rules of Court mandates that “[u]pon the filing
‘Motion to Lift Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate.’ Pag- of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or
IBIG informed the trial court that the loan of Eduardo had been proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in full.”
the complaint without affording them the right to
“It is hornbook law that courts acquire jurisdiction over a case adduce their evidence on their claim of damages.
only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee.”Since no Petition was denied, the CA affirmed the decision of the
docket or filing fees were paid, then the RTC Branch 28 did trial court.
not acquire jurisdiction over the matter/case. It therefore erred ISSUE:
in taking cognizance of the same. Consequently, all the
proceedings undertaken by the trial court are null and void, and Whether or not the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction
without force and effect. All proceedings, processes and writs to resolve the issue being raised by the petitioners?
emanating therefrom are likewise NULLIFIED and VOIDED RULING:
for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the petitioners had every
opportunity to question and object the composition of
CASE 5: Spouses De Pedro vs Romasan Development
the survey team before the trial court, since they failed
Corp and Manuel Ko, G.R. No. 158002 to do so, they cannot now allowed to do the same on
FACTS:Spouses de Pedro filed a complaint appeal and according to the CA, it could not take
against the respondents Romasan Development Corporation judicial noticed of the alleged cases filed against the
and Manuel Ko for damages with prayer for preliminary chairman of the survey team since this was not one of
injunction. The complaint averred that the spouses were the the matters which the court could take judicial notice of
registered owner of a parcel of land, that the respondents whether mandatory or directory.
started putting up a barbed wire fence on the perimeter of the The Supreme Court in denying the petition held that a
Certificate of Title once registered should not thereafter
adjacent property. be impugned, altered, change, modified, enlarged or
diminished, except in a direct proceeding permitted by
The respondents alleged that they were owners of the
law. The resolution of the issue is thus not dependent
land as evidenced by a TCT. Then the trial court issued
on the report of the survey team filed in the trial court.
an order to have a relocation survey of the property to
The action of the petitioners against the respondents
verify its location. The respondent also filed a
based on the material allegations of the complaints is
manifestation motion to dismiss stating that there was
one for recovery of possession of the subject property
no legal or factual basis for the complaint as shown on
and damages. However such action is not a direct but a
the survey reports conducted by the survey team. Hence
collateral attack of the TCT. Neither did the
the petitioners had no cause of action against them. The
respondents directly attack the TCT in their answer to
trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
the complaint. Although the respondents stated in said
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the
answer by way of special and affirmative defenses that
order, alleging it was premature for the court to dismiss
the subject property is covered by a TCT issued in the
name of the respondent corporation and as such the said (RTC), Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, a
respondent is entitled to the possession thereof to the Petition for Declaration of Unconstitutionality Through
exclusion of the petitioners such allegation does not Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for
constitute a direct attack on the TCT but is likewise a
Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and Restraining Order
collateral attack thereon. Thus the court a quo had no
jurisdiction to resolve the decisive issue raised by the against the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the DAR, and
parties in the trial court. the beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). The DAR filed its Answer and one of their
assertions is that the RTC has no jurisdiction over petitions for
CASE 6: DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in agrarian reform cases,
v. TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY which is vested by Section 54 of RA 6657, in the Court of
FACTS: Appeals (CA).
Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, Subsequently, Trinidad Valley Realty and Development
Frannie Greenmeadows Pastures, Inc., Isabel Greenland Agri- Corporation, et. al. filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Petition
based Resources, Inc., Isabel Evergreen Plantations, Inc., and for Admission of the Amended Petition in order to change
Michelle Farms, Inc., Isabel Greenmeadows Quality Products, the nature of the action from a special civil action of certiorari,
Inc., Ernesto Baricuatro, Claudio Villo, and Efren Nuevo prohibition and mandamus to an ordinary action of annulment
(hereinafter, Trinidad Valley Realty and Development of land titles. The DAR, et. al. opposed the motion in its
Corporation, et. al.) are the registered owners of a parcel of Opposition. The RTC conducted a hearing and held that it had
land in Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental. The landholding jurisdiction over the case. LRA and DAR filed a Motion for
consists of a total area of 641.7895 – about 200 hectares Reconsideration on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but both
thereof are devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. The motions were denied by the RTC. In petition for certiorari filed
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed 479.8905 with the CA, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by
hectares of the said landholding under the coverage of RA the Solicitor General and the LRA sought to annul the subject
6657 between March 1995 and July 2000. Certificates of Land Order of the RTC. The CA reversed and set aside the Order of
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Transfer Certificates of Titles the RTC.
(TCTs) were subsequently issued in favor of the agrarian
reform beneficiaries.
On June 10, 2004, Trinidad Valley Realty Development
Corporation, et. al. filed before the Regional Trial Court
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the CASE 7: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
original and amended petitions filed by the Trinidad Valley REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC.
(FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES
Realty and Development Corporation, et. al.
MANUFACTURING, INC.), Respondent.
RULING: The RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case. G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014
HELD: It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the FACTS:
jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is Petitioner is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal
determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the Revenue empowered to perform the duties of said office
complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is including, among others, the power to decide, approve and
grant refunds or tax credits of erroneously or excessively paid
determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and
taxes. Respondent Silicon Philippines, Inc., on the other hand,
cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by
parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged virtue of the laws of the Philippines, engaged primarily in the
or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, and
acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the exporting advance and large–scale integrated circuits
parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being components (ICs).
legislative in character. The nature of an action, as well as 6 May 1999, respondent filed with the One–Stop Shop Inter–
Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the
which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined
Department of Finance (DOF) an application for Tax
based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the Credit/Refund of VAT paid for the second quarter of 1998 in
plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled the aggregate amount of P29,559,050.44, representing its
to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The alleged unutilized input tax.
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief Thereafter, since no final action has been taken by petitioner on
sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the respondent’s administrative claim for
allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested
refund, respondent filed a Petition for Review before the Court
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover of Tax Appeals (CTA) on 30 June 2000 docketed as CTA Case
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. No. 6129.
CTA denied respondent’s claim for refund of input VAT on
domestic purchases of goods and services attributable to zero–
rated sales on the ground that the export sales invoices
presented in support thereto do not have Bureau of Internal JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
Revenue (BIR) permit to print, while the sales invoices do not FACTS: The City of Lapu-Lapu demanded from the PEZA
show that the sale was “zero–rated,” all in violation of the P32,912,350.08 in real property taxes for the period from 1992
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997. to 1998 on the PEZA’s properties located in the Mactan
Economic Zone. PEZA filed a petition for declaratory relief
RULING: with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, praying that the
It should be recalled that the CTA is a court of special trial court declare it exempt from payment of real property
jurisdiction. As such, it can only take cognizance of such taxes. The trial court held that all privileges, benefits,
matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction.22 In view thereof, advantages, or exemptions granted to special economic zones
although the parties have not raised the issue of jurisdiction, created under the Bases Conversion and Development Act of
nevertheless, this Court may motu proprio determine whether 1992 apply to special economic zones created under the
or not the CTA has jurisdiction over respondent’s judicial Special Economic Zone Act of 1995. Since these benefits
claim for refund taking into consideration, the factual and legal include exemption from payment of national or local taxes,
allegations contained in the pleadings filed by both parties and these benefits apply to special economic zones owned by the
found by the court a quo. PEZA.
Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125,23 which was ISSUES: I. Whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasay had
thereafter amended by RA No. 9282,24 defines the appellate jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the City of Lapu-Lapu’s
jurisdiction of the CTA. The said provision, in part, petition for declaratory relief.
reads:chanRoblesvirtualL
Section 7. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Tax Appeals shall HELD: Yes, The RTC of Pasay had no jurisdiction to hear, try,
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as and decide the City of Lapu-Lapu’s petition for declaratory
herein provided. relief. The City was objecting to the venue of the action, not to
(1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay. In
involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue essence, the City was contending that the PEZA’s petition is a
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation real action as it affects title to or possession of real property,
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue;
and, therefore, the PEZA should have filed the petition with the
Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City where the real
CASE 9: CITY OF LAPU-LAPU, Petitioner, v.
PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, G.R. properties are located. The venue of an action depends on
No. 184203 whether the action is a real or personal action. Should the
action affect title to or possession of real property, or interest Muslim, bought a parcel of land from Ceres Canete. March 3,
therein, it is a real action. The action should be filed in the 1996 – A Transfer Certificate of Title was issued to the
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the respondent but the petitioner (Villagracia), who is a Christian,
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. If the
occupied the land. The respondent filed an action against the
action is a personal action, the action shall be filed with the
proper court where the plaintiff or any of the principal petitioner to recover the possession of the parcel of land before
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal the 5th Sharia District Court, which took cognizance of the case
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant and ruled in favor of the respondent (Roldan E. Mala).
where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
However, whatever objections the City has against the venue of ISSUE:
the PEZA’s action for declaratory relief are already deemed Did the 5th Sharia District Court have jurisdiction over the
waived. Objections to venue must be raised at the earliest person of the petitioner (Villagracia), who is a Christian?
possible opportunity. The City did not file a motion to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the venue was improperly laid. RULING: No, the 5th Sharia Distrit Court did not have the
Neither did the City raise this objection in its answer. In any jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner (Villagracia), who
event, the law sought to be judicially interpreted in this case is a Christian. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the person
had already been breached. The Regional Trial Court of Pasay, is the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to
therefore, had no jurisdiction over the PEZA’s petition for
subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and
declaratory relief against the City.
other rulings rendered in the action. A court acquires the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by voluntary
appearance or valid service of summons. The law (Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines) which confers
jurisdiction to the Sharia District Court, provides that the same
has concurrent original jurisdiction with existing civil actions
over real actions not arising from customary contracts wherein
CASE 14: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ISSUE: Whether or not the Manila RTC has jurisdiction over
ATLANTA INDUSTRIES, INC., G.R. No. 193796, July 2, the instant prohibition case and
2014 eventually issue the writ prayed for.
FACTS: Petitioner Land Bank, entered into a Subsidiary Loan RULING: No. While the Court, Court of Appeals and
Agreement and with the City Government of Iligan to finance Regional Trial Court have original concurrent jurisdiction to
the development and expansion of the city's water supply issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, if what is
system. assailed relates to "acts or omissions of a lower court or of a
corporation, board, officer or person," the petition must be filed
Accordingly, the City Government of Iligan, through its Bids "in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area as defined by the Court."
and Awards Committee (BAC), conducted a public bidding
wherein respondent Atlanta Industries, Inc. (Atlanta) Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court corresponds to Section
participated, however was disqualified. Atlanta decided to have 21 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as "The
its disqualification reconsidered by the BAC, however opted, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980" (BP 129), which gives
instead, to participate in the re-bidding of the project. Regional Trial Courts original jurisdiction over cases of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, and injunction but lays down the limitation that the
Apprehensive of the BAC's use of bidding documents that writs issued therein are enforceable only within their respective
appeared to be in contravention of RA 9184 and its IRR, territorial jurisdictions.
Atlanta filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with an
urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order Undoubtedly, the writ of prohibition issued by the Manila RTC
(TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the re- in order to restrain acts beyond the bounds of the territorial
limits of its jurisdiction (i.e., in Iligan City) is null and void.
bidding of the project against the City Government of Iligan,
Moreover, the necessity for the complaining bid participant to
the BAC, and Land Bank before the Manila RTC. complete the protest process before resorting to court action
cannot be overemphasized. It is a condition precedent to the
• Manila RTC rendered a decision in favor of Atlanta and court's taking cognizance of an action that assails a bid process.
declared the subject bidding null and void.
When precipitately taken prior to the completion of the protest The Decision of the trial court eventually lapsed into finality
process, such case shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction which paved the way for the RTC-43 Decision to lapse into
finality.
CASE 16: Rubio vs Alabata The respondent’s motion to withdraw was granted by the CA
(G.R. No. 203947; February 26, 2014) and eventually became final and executory on June 20, 1997.
Parties: Judgment was later on issued and recorded in CA Book of
Rufa A. Rubio, Bartolome Bantoto, Leon Alagadmo,
Entries of Judgments.
Rodrigo Delicta, and Adriano Alabata (Petitioners)
Unfortunately, the judgment was not executed within five
Lourdes Alabata (Respondent)
(5) years from the date of its entry.
Nature of Action: A copy of the Entry of Judgment was sent to their SAC-PAO
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 for annulment (Special Appealed Cases Division of PAO) counsel, Atty.
of the November 16, 2011 Decision and the September 26, Lourdes Naz. However, they were never informed about the
2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV entry of judgment.
No. 02497. Atty Naz failed to inform PAO-Dumaguete of the said
The CA decision affirmed the February 28, 2008 resolution development. When petitioners followed up with PAO-
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City Dumaguete, it was of the belief that the appeal of respondent
denying the petitioner’s plead for revival of judgment. was still pending.
It was only in November 2007 (or more than 10 years after
Facts: the RTC-43 became final), when petitioners actually learned
The parties in this case were involved earlier case for that the favorable decision became final after their nephew
annulment of declaration of heirship and sale, reconveyance secured a copy of the entry of judgment from the trial court.
and damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Petitioners eventually filed for an action for revival of
Dumaguete City. judgment through PAO-Dumaguete.
The case was decided in favor of petitioner. Respondent filed for an Answer with Affirmative Defense
In its October 31, 1995 Decision, the trial court declared the and Motion to Dismiss.
“Declaration of Heirship and Sale" void and ordered the RTC Branch 42 granted her Motion to dismiss.
respondent to reconvey the entire subject property to Petitioners appealed before the CA. The appeal and the
petitioners. subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
As a matter of course, the respondent appealed to the CA. Hence, this petition.
She, however, later withdrew her appeal. ISSUE:
Is the RTC correct in strictly applying the procedural rules on and withdrew her appeal and (2) that no fault could be
prescription and dismissing the action for revival of judgment attributed to petitioners. The Public Attorney’s Office,
filed by the petitioners? specifically the Special Appealed Cases Division, failed to
xxx
On 25 October 2012, petitioners Association of Flood Victims
The alleged bounced checks issued by x x x Magallanes
and Jaime Aguilar Hernandez (Hernandez) filed with this Court
were issued payable in the name of Andrews International
a special civil action for certiorari and/or mandamus under
Products, Inc. The [n]arration of [facts] in the several
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners assert that the
Informations for violation of B.P. 22 filed against Magallanes
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
issued Minute Resolution No. 12-0859. Furthermore, personality, then all members of the association must be made
petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to parties in the civil action
compel publication of the COMELEC Minute Resolution No.
12-0859. CASE 28 : RODOLFO V. FRANCISCO, Petitioner,
vs. EMILIANA M. ROJAS, and the legitimate heirs of
ISSUE: JOSE A. ROJAS, namely: JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS
Whether the petitioners Association of Flood Victims and II, ROLANDO M. ROJAS, JOSE M. ROJAS, JR.,
Jaime Aguilar Hernandez, are a real party in interest. CARMELITA ROJAS-JOSE, VICTOR M. ROJAS, and
RULING: LOURDES M. ROJAS, all represented by JOSE
We dismiss the petition. Petitioners do not have legal capacity FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, Respondents.
to sue. Under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of G.R. No. 167120,
Civil Procedure only natural or juridical persons, or entities April 23, 2014
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action, which must
be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in FACTS: Alfredo Guido Jr. applied before the Land
interest. In their petition, it is stated that petitioner Association Registration Authority for Reconstitution of Title of a huge
of Flood Victims "is a non-profit and non-partisan organization parcel of land that he inherited in Morong, Rizal. Five months
in the process of formal incorporation, the primary purpose of after he received the approval of his for Reconstitution of Title,
which is for the benefit of the common or general interest of petitioner Rodolfo Francisco applied for Application of
many flood victims who are so numerous that it is Registration of Title of the same parcel of land which
impracticable to join all as parties," and that petitioner overlapped with the property of respondent Emiliana Rojas etc.
Hernandez "is a Tax Payer and the Lead Convenor of the The Court of First Instance of Rizal, acting on the land
Association of Flood Victims." Clearly, petitioner Association registration court decision, declared petitioner as true and
of Flood Victims, which is still in the process of incorporation, absolute owner of the said property. Thereafter petitioner filed
cannot be considered a juridical person or an entity authorized with the same court petition for the issuance of decree of
by law, which can be a party to a civil action. An registration. Then herein respondents - the Rojases – filed a
unincorporated association, in the absence of an enabling law, petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA] claiming
has no juridical personality and thus, cannot sue in the name of that they came to know of the existence of petitioner’s
application for registration only "sometime in June 2000" when
a real estate agent by the name of Florentina Rivera who
the association.5 Such unincorporated association is not a legal discovered the same and brought it to their knowledge.
entity distinct from its members. If an association, like
petitioner Association of Flood Victims, has no juridical The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondents.
ISSUE: FACTS: Pursuant to Section 63[4] of the EPIRA Law and
Rule 33[5] of the IRR, the NPB passed NPB Resolution No.
Whether or not petitioner’s land title was valid? 2002-124 which provided for the Guidelines on the Separation
Program of the NPC and the Selection and Placement of
HELD: NO. On the assumption that what is being applied for Personnel in the NPC Table of Organization.
formed part of a bigger parcel of land belonging to the Guidos
and Rojases, then, as registered owners thereof, they (Guidos Petitioners maintain that said Resolutions were not passed and
and Rojases) should have been mentioned in the Application issued by a majority of the members of the duly constituted
for Registration as adjoining owners conformably with Section Board of Directors since only three of its members, as provided
under Section 48[6] of the EPIRA Law, were present.
15 of PD 1529, which requires in the application for
registration the inclusion of the full names and addresses of the Petitioners claim that the acts of these representatives are
adjoining owners. Contrary to the mandatory requirement of violative of the well-settled principle that delegated power
the law, there is nothing in the application for registration cannot be further delegated. Thus, petitioners conclude that the
alleging that the Rojases and Guidos are adjoining owners. As questioned Resolutions have been illegally issued as it were not
adjoining owners, respondents are indispensable parties issued by a duly constituted board since no quorum existed
entitled to actual and personal notice of the application for because only three of the nine members, as provided under
Section 48 of the EPIRA Law, were present and qualified to sit
registration. A valid judgment cannot be rendered where there
and vote.
is want of indispensable parties like respondents who hold
subsisting Torrens title to the property in question. ISSUES: 1. whether or not there is undue delegation of
delegated power when only the representatives of certain
members of the NPB attended the board meetings and passed
and signed the questioned Resolutions.