Facts:

1. Cause of action:
a. Ramon Ong owns a property in La Trinidad Benguet
b. .
c. Spouses Manuel constructed improvements through force, intimidation, strategy,
threats and stealth on the property owned by Ramon Ong

2. Flow chart

a. December 21, 2009 Ramon Ong filed with the RTC (jurisdiction), La Trinidad Benguet
(Venue) a complaint for accion reivindicatoria. (R6 S3)
b. January 19, 2010 Ong filed an amended complaint (R10 S7)
c. February 3, 2010 issuance of summon to respondent spouses Manuel(R14 S6)
a. April 23, 2010 Ong filed a motion to declare respondents in default(R9 S3)
b. February 12, 2010 Service of summon at the address of Respondent
c. Return of summon by Sheriff
d. March 16, 2010 Subsequent service by sheriff and refusal by respondents to
receive and sign summon
e. Tender of summon by sheriff to respondents
d. June 28, 2010, RTC granted motion to declare respondents in default by reason to file
answer
e. Court granted ex parte proceeding
f. September 13, 2010 Spouses filed motion to lift order of default and attached answer
g. November 30, 2010 RTC denied motion to lift order of default
h. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration
a. February 16, 2011 Court denied motion for reconsideration
i. Spouses filed petition for certiorari under rule 65
a. June 28, 2012 CA dismissed petition for certiorari for lack of merit
j. Spouses filed an appeal to Supreme Court

3. Issue and Ruling

Issue 1: Whether jurisdiction over the person of the respondents have been acquired.

Ruling 1: The Supreme Court ruled that it was validly acquired. The sheriff’s return indicated
that the sheriff personally handed the summon to respondent twice but was refused by the
latter. The defence of respondents that no valid service of summon was issued because of
the variance of address is not tenable since what is determinative of the validity of personal
service is the person of the defendant, not the locus of service. Therefore, there was a valid
service of summon, hence, the jurisdiction over the person of the respondents have been
validly acquired.

Issue 2: Whether the respondents are entitled relief from the order of default.
 Ruling 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents are not entitled to such relief. A
valid service of summon was made on them, therefore it was incumbent upon respondents,
pursuant to Rule 11, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,26 to file their answer
within fifteen (15) days. However, they failed to do so and thus they were rightly declared in
default.

G.R. No. 89114 December 2, 1991

FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR., petitioner, 

vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, MATEO A. T. CAPARAS, AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

Facts:

1. Cause of action:
a. .
b. .
c. .

2. Flowchart

a. Republic represented by PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan civil case no. 0035 against petitioner
for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages

b. Petitioner included with principal defendants

c. Petitioner filed motion for inspection and inspection of documents

- court denied resolution

d. Petitioner filed a motion for a bill of particular

- the allegations of the Second Amended state only conclusions of fact and law,
inferences of facts from facts not pleaded and mere presumptions, not ultimate facts as required
by the Rules of Court.

e. Petitioner filed a reply

f. April 21, 1990 Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for a bill of particulars

- the allegations in the Expanded Complaint are quite clear and sufficient enough for
defendant-movant to know the nature and scope of the causes of action upon which plaintiff
seeks relief therefore sufficient to enable him to prepare for trial.

g. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration

 May 29, 1990 denied by Sandiganbayan

h. Petitioner filed an appeal to the supreme court

Issue: Whether or not the facts stated in the amended complaint of respondent are ultimate facts
which are required by a cause of action.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that ultimate facts refers to the essential facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement
of the cause of action insufficient. The allegations that defendant Ferdinand E. Marcos, together with
the other defendants "embarked upon a systematic plan to accumulate ill-gotten wealth" and that
said defendants acted "in flagrant breach of public trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public
officers, with gross and scandalous abuse of right and in brazen violation of the Constitution and
laws of the Philippines", are conclusions of law unsupported by factual premises.

Nothing is said in the complaint about the petitioner's acts in execution of the alleged "systematic
plan to accumulate ill-gotten wealth", or which are supposed to constitute "flagrant breach of public
trust", "gross and scandalous abuse of right and power", and "violations of the Constitution and laws
of the Philippines". The complaint does not even allege what duties the petitioner failed to perform,
or the particular rights he abused.

G.R. No. 188832               April 23, 2014

VIVENCIO B. VILLAGRACIA, Petitioner, 
vs.
FIFTH (5th) SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT and ROLDAN E. MALA, represented by his father
Hadji Kalam T. Mala, Respondents.

Cause of action

a. Roldan purchased a 300-square meter parcel of land in Maguindanao

b. Vivencio is a resident of the place where Roldan purchased the property
c. Vivencio occupied his property, depriving him of the right to use, possess, and
enjoy it.

Flow chart:

1. Roldan filed an action to recover the possession of the parcel of land with respondent
Fifth Shari’a District Court.
2. Respondent Court issued service of summon on Vivencio.
- Vivencio failed to file his answer
3. Roldan filed a motion to Present Ex parte
- January 30, 2008 Court granted Motion
4. June 11, 2008 Respondent Court rendered a decision
 - Roldan has a better right to possess the parcel of land.
- Issued Vivencio to vacate and pay Roldan the amount of 10,000
and 5,000 for moderate damages and attorney’s fees.
5. December 15, 2008
- Issued a notice of writ of execution (30 days compliance with
order)
- December 16, 2008 Vivencio received a copy of the notice
6. January 13, 2009, Vivencio filed a petition for relief from judgment with prayer for
issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.
- Argument - Shari’a District Courts may only hear civil actions
and proceedings if both parties are Muslims.
7. May 29, 2009, Respondent court denied Vivencio’s petition for relief from judgment for lack
of merit.
- June 17, 2009, receipt of order denying his motion
8. August 6, 2009, Vivencio filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of
temporary restraining with the Supreme Court
- Argument – Respondent Court has no jurisdiction
9. 19, 2009, Supreme Court ordered Roldan to comment on Vivencio’s petition for
certiorari. 
- Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
the implementation of the writ of execution against Vivencio.
10. September 21, 2011, Roldan filed his comment
11. November 21, 2011, Supreme court ordered Vivencio to reply to Roldan’s comment.
12. February 3, 2012, Vivencio filed a manifestation saying he would no longer file a reply to
the comment

Issue: Whether Respondent court has jurisdiction over the real action for the recovery of property

Ruling 1: No. When the property involved is real, the action to recover it is a real action. In such
actions, the parties involved must be Muslims for Shari’a District Courts to validly take
cognizance of them. The allegations in Roldan’s petition for recovery of possession did not state
that Vivencio is a Muslim. When Vivencio stated in his petition for relief from judgment that he is
not a Muslim, Roldan did not dispute this claim. When it became apparent that Vivencio is not a
Muslim, respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court should have motu proprio dismissed the case. If it
appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action based on the
pleadings or the evidence on record, the court shall dismiss the claim:

Section1 Defenses and objections not pleaded. – Defenses and objections not pleaded either in
a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. Respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court
had no authority under the law to decide Roldan’s action because not all of the parties involved
in the action are Muslims.
G.R. No. 195477

SPOUSES HERMINIO E. ERORITA and EDITHA C. ERORITA, Petitioners, 

vs.
SPOUSES LIGAYA DUMLAO and ANTONIO DUMLAO, Respondents.

Cause of action:

1. Spouses Dumlao are the registered owners of a parcel of land which they bought
through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale
2. Spouses Erorita are bound to pay or vacate the property upon failure to pay
3. Spouses Erorita failed to pay and vacate the property when demanded by the Spouses
Dumlao

Flow chart:

March 4, 2004, the Spouses Dumlao filed a complaint for recovery of possession before the
Regional Trial Court

Defendants filed an answer

- The complaint be dismissed for they cannot be forced to

vacate and pay rent under the factual circumstances.

Pre-trial stage

- Defendants failed to appeared and was therefore declared in

default by the RTC

RTC ordered Sps Dumlao to present evidence exparte

June 4, 2007, the RTC decided in the Spouses Dumlao’s favor.

- RTC issued the following order:

a.  immediately vacate the property and turn it over to the
Spouses Dumlao
b. pay accumulated rentals, damages, and attorney’s fees.

defendants Erorita appealed to the CA

-   the complaint patently shows a case for unlawful detainer

therefore RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case

CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

- The case involves an action for possession of real property

and not unlawful detainer.

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration

- Denied by the CA

Petitioner Erorita filed an appeal to the Supreme Court

Issue 1: Whether RTC has jurisdiction over the case

Ruling 1: No, The supreme court held that Jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the
complaint and not on the complaint’s caption. To make a case for unlawful detainer, the
complaint must allege that: (a) initially, the defendant lawfully possessed the property, either by
contract or by plaintiff’s tolerance; (b) the plaintiff notified the defendant that his right of
possession is terminated; (c) the defendant remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of
its enjoyment; and (d) the plaintiff filed a complaint within one year from the last demand on
defendant to vacate the property. although the complaint bears the caption "recovery of
possession," its allegations contain the jurisdictional facts for an unlawful detainer case. Under
RA 7691, an action for unlawful detainer is within the MTC’s exclusive jurisdiction regardless of
the property’s assessed value.

Issue 2: Whether The petitioners timely questioned the RTC's jurisdiction

Yes. As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, or
even for the first time on appeal.  An exception to this rule is the principle of estoppel by laches.
12

Asserting lack of jurisdiction on appeal before the CA does not constitute laches. Furthermore,
the filing of an answer and the failure to attend the pre-trial do not constitute the active
participation in judicial proceedings contemplated in Tijam.

G.R. No. 147406               July 14, 2008

VENANCIO FIGUEROA y CERVANTES,1 Petitioner, 

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

Cause of action

1. Respondent is the republic of the Philippines which has the right to prosecute a person
who has violated its laws
2. Defendant is venancio, a citizen of the Philippines who has the obligation to abide by the
laws of such country
3. Venancio committed the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Flow chart:

1. July 8, 1994 an information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed

against the petitioner 
2. August 19, 1998, Trial
- trial court convicted the petitioner as charged
3. Petitioner appealed to the CA
- Trial court lack of Jurisdiction
4. CA affirmed the trial court’s ruling
- Estoppel by laches
5. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court
 Issue: Whether or not the petitioner, in raising for the first time on appeal the matter of
lack of jurisdiction of the trial court is barred by laches.
Ruling: No. the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to
bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances. 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. At that time, no
considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay alone, though
unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of "estoppel by laches" unless it further
appears that the party, knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the
condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he
cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due to loss of
evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes.

G.R. No. L-21450             April 15, 1968

SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, 

vs.
MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY alias GAVINO SIBONGHANOY and LUCIA
BAGUIO, defendants, 
MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC. (CEBU BRANCH) bonding company and
defendant-appellant.

Facts:
Cause of action:
a. .
b. B.
c. .

Flowchart:

1. July 19, 1948 spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog commenced Civil Case No. R-660
in the Court of First Instance

- a writ of attachment was issued on the properties of the defendant

- writ of attachment dissolved due to a counter bond

2. Court issued summon to defendants

3. defendants filed an answer with a counterclaim

- plaintiff filed an answer to such counterclaim (reply)

4. trial commenced

- Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs

- therefore, court issued writ of execution against defendant

- writ of execution unsatisfied, therefore plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of execution
against the Surety's bond

5. Surety filed a written opposition

- motion to deny execution of bond and to be relieved from liability

6. Court denied such motion

7. plaintiffs filed a second motion for execution against the counterbond.

- Court granted the motion for execution and the corresponding writ was issued.

8. Surety corporation moved to quash the writ

- ground: issued without the required summary hearing

- court denied the motion

9. Surety appealed to the court of appeals

10. December 11, 1962 Court of appeals affirmed the order of the lower court

11. Surety filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration

- motion granted

12. Surety filed pleading entitled motion to dismiss

- ground – action of appellee was filed in the CFI on July 19, 1948 where a month before that,
Republic Act No. 296 had become effective, removing the jurisdiction of CFI to hear the case and
transferring to inferior courts. Therefore, CFI has no jurisdiction to try and hear the case.

13. January 16, 1963, CA required appelless to file an answer to the motion to dismiss

- appellees failed to file answer

14. May 20, 1963, CA set aside its decision and certified the case to the Supreme Court

Issue: whether the motion of lack of jurisdiction raised by the Surety has not prescribed.

Ruling: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the action was commenced in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu on July 19, 1948, that is, almost fifteen 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 has
been held that a party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief against
his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction. from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised
the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of
the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in
force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so.