You are on page 1of 3

BORLONGAN VS BDO, GR 217617, April 5, 2017

FACTS: Borlongan and his wife Carmelita acquired a real property in Pasig City. When they went to the
Registry of Deeds to obtain a copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title for a prospective sale, it contained
an annotation that it was the subject of an execution sale for a pending case.

The records show that BDO foreclosed Fumikala Compound for Tancho Corporation’s failure to
pay its obligation and BDO already consolidated ownership of the property. Moreover, the process
server filed an Officer’s Return stating that summons remained unserved as the defendants are no
longer holding officer there.

BDO filed an ex-parte motion praying that the summons and complaint be served against
Carmelita but the Sheriff filed a return stating that no actual personal service was made as Carmelita is
no longer residing on the given adder. Makati RTC then declared Carmelita in default.

ISSUE: WON CA erred in refusing to issue a TRO/WPI stopping the consolidation of BDO’s ownership
over the property

RULING: Yes. For a court to decide on the propriety of issuing a TRO and/or a WPI, it must exist (1) a
clear and unmistakable right that must be protected and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage. In the case at hand, petitioner has a clear and unmistakable rights that
must be protected which are her proprietary rights over the property and her constitutionally protected
right to due process before she can be deprived of her property. As the essence of due process lies in
the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence the defendant may have in support of
her defense, she must be properly served the summons of the court. The service of summons is a vital
and indispensable ingredient of due process and the constitutional right of the petitioner to be properly
served the summons and be notified has been disregarded by the officers of the trial court. Without a
doubt, the appellate court should have acted intrepidly and issued the TRO and/or WPI posthaste to
protect the constitutional right of petitioner, as it is duty-bound to do.
SUN INSURANCE VS ASUNCION, GR 79937-38, February 13, 1989

FACTS: Petitioner Sun Insurance files a complaint for the annulment of a decision on the consignation of
fire insurance policy. Subsequently, Private Respondent Asuncion files a complaint for the refund of
premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in a civil case against SIOL. In addition,
Asuncion also claims for damages, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, etc., however, the prayer did not
state the amount of damages sought although from the body of the complaint it can be inferred to be in
amount of 50 Million. Hence, Asuncion originally paid only 210 pesos in docket fees.

The complaint underwent a number of amendments to make way for subsequent re-assessments of the
amount of damages sought as well as the corresponding docket fees. The respondent demonstrated his
willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required.

ISSUE: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the case even if private respondent did not pay the
correct or sufficient docket fees

RULING: Yes. The court ruled that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Same rule goes for permissive
counterclaim, third party claims and similar pleadings.

In herein case, obviously, there was the intent on the part of PR to defraud the government of the
docket fee due not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the second
amended complaint. Where a trial court acquires jurisdiction in like manner, but subsequently, the
judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be
the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and
collect the additional fee.