6. Orendain vs. BFHomes, Inc., G.R. No. 146313, Oct.
31, It cannot depend on the defenses set forth in the answer, in
2006
CASE FILED: Petition for Review on Certiorari
FACTS:
Despite its solvent status, BF Homes, Inc, respondent filed
a Petition for Rehabilitation and for Declaration in a State
of Suspension of Payments under Section 4 of PD No. 1758
before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
SEC subsequently issued an Order creating a Management
Committee.
SEC ordered the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver,
FBO Management Networks, Inc., with petitioner Orendain
as Chairman to prevent paralyzation of BF Homes'
business operations.7
Deed of Absolute Sale8 was executed by and between BF
Homes' represented by petitioner Orendain as absolute
and registered owner, and the Local Superior of the
Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate Phils., Inc. (LSFSIPI)
over a parcel of land
SEC hearing panel released an Omnibus Order10 which
admitted and confirmed the Closing Report submitted by
the receiver, petitioner Orendain.
SEC, further appointed a new Committee of Receivers
Consequently, receiver Orendain was relieved of his duties
and responsibilities.
BF Homes filed a Complaint before the Las Piñas RTC
against LSFSIPI and petitioner Orendain, for
reconveyance of the property alleging, inter alia, that
the LSFSIPI transacted with Orendain in his individual
capacity and therefore, neither FBO Management, Inc. nor
Orendain had title to the property transferred.
Florencio B. Orendain filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that
the RTC had no jurisdiction over the reconveyance suit;
BF Homes filed its Opposition15 to petitioner's Motion
to Dismiss, alleging that the case was within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, not the SEC,
considering that the case was an ordinary
reconveyance suit
RTC denied Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit
ISSUE: which has jurisdiction over the action for
reconveyance the RTC or SEC.
RULING:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
law and cannot be subject of an agreement between
parties. (mao ning sa book ni judge na iyang gi quote)
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 plaintiff is entitled to
recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration by
the defendant
the BF Homes' Complaint for reconveyance was filed on
January 23, 1996 against LSFSIPI and Florencio B.
Orendain
Section 5 of PD No. 902-A was still the law in force
whereby the SEC still had original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide intra-corporate cases.
However, Section 5 of PD No. 902-A does not apply in the
instant case.
The LSFSIPI is neither an officer nor a stockholder of BF
Homes, and this case does not involve intra-corporate
proceedings.
In addition, the seller, petitioner Orendain, is being sued in
his individual capacity for the unauthorized sale of the
property in controversy.
Hence, we find no cogent reason to sustain petitioner's
manifestation that the resolution of the instant
controversy depends on the ratification by the SEC of the
acts of its agent or the receiver because the act of Orendain
was allegedly not within the scope of his authority as
receiver.
In addition, jurisdiction over the case for reconveyance is
clearly vested in the RTC as provided in paragraph (2),
Section 19, B.P. Blg. 129,
Nowhere in said decree [PD 902-A] do we find even so
much as an intimidation [sic] that absolute jurisdiction and
control is vested in the Securities and Exchange
Commission in all matters affecting corporations.
Moreover, the instant petition has been rendered
moot and academic by the passage of RA 8799 or The
Securities Regulation Code which took effect on August
8, 2000.37
Section 5.2 of RA 8799 transferred exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the SEC over actions involving intra-
corporate controversies to the courts of general
jurisdiction or the appropriate RTC.
In the transition, all intra-corporate cases pending in the
SEC, which were not ripe for adjudication as of August 8,
2000, were turned over to the RTC.
Thus, "whether or not the issue is intra-corporate, it is now
the [RTC] and no longer the SEC that takes cognizance of
[and resolves cases involving intra-corporate
controversies]."38