Q: Goodfeather Corporation, through its Q: Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon

President, Al Pakino, filed with the Regional City an action for specific performance praying
Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for specific for the delivery of a parcel of land subject of
performance against Robert White. Instead of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties,
filing an answer to the complaint, Robert White the case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the designated as a special commercial court. Later,
ground of lack of the appropriate board the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who,
resolution from the Board of Directors of Good upon realizing that the trial court was not a
feather Corporation to show the authority of Al regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to
Pakino to represent the corporation and file the file a petition to have the judgment annulled for
complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the lack of jurisdiction. What advice would you give
motion to dismiss and, accordingly it ordered to Era? Explain your answer. (2017 Bar)
the dismissal of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a
motion for reconsideration which the RTC A: The advice I would give to Era is that the petition
denied. As nothing more could be done by Al for annulment of judgment on lack of jurisdiction
Pakino before the RTC, he filed an appeal before will not prosper. It has been held that a special
the Court of Appeals (CA). Robert White moved commercial court is still a court of general
for dismissal of the appeal in the ground that the jurisdiction and can hear and try a non-commercial
same involved purely a question of law and case. (Concorde Condominium Inc. v. Baculio, Gr.
should have been filed with the Supreme Court 203678, February 17, 2016)
(SC). However, Al Pakino claimed that the Hence, the special commercial court has jurisdiction
appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law to try and decide the action for specific performance
because there must be a factual determination and to render a judgment therein.
if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly authorized by
Goodfeather Corporation to file the complaint. Q: Estrella was the registered owner of a huge
Whose position is correct? Explain. (2014 Bar) parcel of land located in a remote part of their
barrio in Benguet. However, when she visited
A: Al Pakino is correct in claiming that the appeal the property after she took a long vacation
involved mixed questions of fact and law. There is a abroad, she was surprised to see that her
question of law when the doubt or difference arises childhood friend, John, had established a
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On vacation house on her property. Both Estrella
the other hand, there is a question of fact when the and John were residents of the same barangay.
doubt or difference arises as to the truth or To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint
falsehood of the alleged facts. (Mirant Philippines for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court
Corporation v. Sario, G.R. No. 197598, November (MTC), alleging that she is the true owner of the
21,2012) Since the complaint was dismissed due to land as evidenced by her certificate of title and
the alleged lack of appropriate board resolution from tax declaration which showed the assessed
the Board of Directors of Goodfeather Corporation,
the appeal will necessarily involve a factual value of the property as P21,000.00. On the
determination of the authority to file the Complaint other hand, John refuted Estrella’s claim of
for the said Corporation. Hence, the appeal before ownership and submitted in evidence a Deed of
the Court of Appeals is correct. Absolute Sale between him and Estrella. After
the filing of John’s answer, the MTC observed
that the real issue was one of ownership and not
of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), a full-blown trial was conducted as if the
case was originally filed with it. The RTC
reasoned that based on the assessed value of the
property, it was the court of proper jurisdiction.
Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment
declaring John as the owner of the land and,
hence, entitled to the possession thereof.
(a) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction? Why or
why not? A: Yes. Mario’s suspension is mandatory although
not automatic (Sec. 13 of RA No 3019 in relation to
A: No. It is well settled that jurisdiction is Sec. 5 of or RA No. 5185). It is mandatory after the
determined by the allegations contained in the determination of the validity of the information in a
complaint. The contention of defendant in his pre-suspension hearing (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan,
Motion to Dismiss has nothing to do in the G.R. No. 124067, March 27, 1998). The purpose of
determination of jurisdiction. suspension is to prevent the accused public officer
Relative thereto, the MTCs has exclusive original from frustrating or hampering his prosecution by
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering
unlawful detainer. (Section 33, B.P. 129) Hence, the with evidence or from committing further acts if
MTC is not correct in dismissing the complaint for malfeasance while in office.
lack of jurisdiction. At any rate, the rules allow
provisional determination of ownership in
ejectment cases when the defendant raises the
defense of ownership in his pleadings and the
question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership. (Sec. 16, Rule 70)
Accordingly, the inferior courts have jurisdiction to
resolve questions of ownership whenever it is
necessary to decide the question of possession in an
ejectment case. (Serreno v. Spouses Gutierrez, G.R.
No. 162366, November 10, 2006)

(b) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on

the assessed value of the property, the case
was within its original jurisdiction and,
hence, it may conduct a full-blown trial of
the appealed case as if it was originally filed
with it? Why or why not? (2014 Bar)

A: No. It is settled that forcible entry and unlawful

detainer cases are within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTC. Moreover, all cases decided
by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC
irrespective of the amounts involved. (Sec. 22, B.P.
129)

Q: Governor Pedro Mario of Tarlac was charged

with indirect bribery before the Sandiganbayan
for accepting a car in exchange of the award of a
series of contracts for medical supplies. The
Sandiganbayan, after going over the
information, found the same to be valid and
ordered the suspension of Mario. The latter
contested the suspension claiming that under
the law (Sec. 13 of RA 3019) his suspension is
not automatic upon filing the information and
his suspension under Sec. 13 of RA 3019 is in
conflict with Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of
1967 (RA 5185). The Sandiganbayan overruled
Mario’s contention stating that Mario’s
suspension under the circumstances is
mandatory. Is the court’s ruling correct? Why?
(2001 Bar)