Civil procedure:

Shafur vs bubla

Frank bubla is an australian national, that entered into a written

contract with samuel sharruf for the presentation of the bubla
continental revue 2x a night at riviera night club at manila, and at
the manila grand opera for 2500 a month for 4 stage shows daily.
Bubla authorized the payment of the performers salaries and
requested an accounting, and payment of the agreed monthly
payments. Despite these demands shfur failed to render an
accounting and pay the monthly payments, as agreed.

On aug 15 1957, bubla filed a complaint for the above mentioned

reasons. Shafur thru counsel filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the complaint and prayed for damages. On september
17 1958, shfur’s counsel withdrew his apprearance because he
could not contact shafur, which the court granted. The case was set
for pre trial but shafur failed to appear. The case was then set to
render a judgement based on the evidence presented by bubla.
Several notices were sent to shafurs address on record, and the
hearings were postponed multiple times to try to inform shafur or
the hearings. The court finally resolved the case based on the
evidence on hand, and found shafur liable on june 9, 1959.

On feb 5 1960, a copy of the decision was finally served upon

shafur. On march 7 1960 shafur filed for a motion for new trial
citing mistake and or excusable negligence. , but was denied stating
that the motion was filed outside the reglementary period as stated
on rule 38, sec 3 of the rules of court. Shafur again filed MRs but
was still denied. Shafur tried to appeal, but was denied since the
appeal was outside the reglementary period to do so.

Shafur then filed a petition for certiorari with the sc

Decision: a motion for new trial based on mistake and or excusable

negligence is a matter of discretion uopn the court. There was also
no affidavit of merit preseted. Even if the answer filed by shafur
was taken into account, the same does not satisfy the rule of proof
of mistake or excusable negligence. He also contends that the court
had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant bubla, but the
court said that it acquired jurisdiction when it filed an answer and
posting affirmative defenses.

The court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff when he submitted the
initiatory pleading, even if he did not once enter the philippines.
 Interlink vs ca

Interlink leased its property to stationery expressions shop.

Interlink filed a collection suit against expressions for unpaid rent.
Sheriff served a copy of the complaint to jonalyn liwana who
undertook to give the copy to the president. Interlink filed a motion
to declare expressions in default, which the court granted. The next
day, expressions thru counsel contends that the service was
defective. It prayed motion to declare expressions in default be
denied. The court denied the motion to declare expressions in
default. The rtc ordered to serve the defendants a copy of the
summons. The sheriff served another copy to expressions president
thru a secretary ochotorina who again undertook to give the
summons to the president. The sheriff wanted to serve the same to
the president personally but the secretary refused. The sheriff then
gave the copy to ochotorina. Stating that the secretary was of
suitable age and discretion.
Interlink again filed a motion to declare defendants in default.
Expressions again opposed the motion. The motion to declare
defendants in default was granted stating that corporate officers are
usually busy and tendering the summons to its secretaries are
sufficient. Interlink was ordered to present evidence ex parte. Rtc
rendered a judgement in favor of interlink.
Expressions filed a petition for certiorari to the ca. Ca said reversed
the rtcs decision stating that the summons was invalidly served.
Interlink filed an mr but was denied. Interlink appealed the decision
to the sc

Decision: there was no valid service of summons. For a juridical

entity, service must be given to the president, managing partner,
corporate secretary, legal counsel or general manager.
There was also no substituted service of summons, the sheriff must
exert efforts to serve the summons personally over a length of
time by leaving the summons at the defendants place of residence,
with a person of suitable age and discretion. Or at the workplace of
the defendant, leaving a copy with a competent person of charge.
There must be impossibility of prompt personal service. Substituted
service must be done over at least 3 attempts, of at least 2 different
dates over a period of 1 month. Sheriff must report of the efforts
used to serve the summons. The sheriffs return indicates that the
sheriff only tried to serve the summons once so there was no
impossibility of prompt personal service.

There is no voluntary submission when counsel appeared for the

defendant because it was specifically done to challenge the
jurisdiction of the court over the defendant,
 Joya vs marquez

An information was filed against the accused including de joya. The

accused allegedly induced dy to invest in state resources
development corporation for 140 m. when the investments fell due,
the checks issued were dishonored for being drawn against
insufficient funds or drawn against closed accounts. Attached to the
complaint were several checks and affidavits to prove the
complainants claim. The court found probable cause to indict the
accused.
Probable cause pertains to information and circumstances that
would lead an ordinary discreet and prudent man to believe that a
crime was committed by the accused. As long as there is prima
facie of the crime committed, a warrant of arrest may be issued.

Jurisdiction is obtained when the plaintiff submits the complaint or

initiatory pleading, and over the defendant by a valid service of
summons or when arrested by a valid warrant of arrest.

Lucas vs lucas

Jessie lucas filed a petition to prove his illegitimate filiation with the
defendant. In 1967, plaintiffs mother elsie uy migrated to manila
from davao. She stayed with a certain belen who worked at a
popular night spot at manila. Elsie would come with belen to work,
where she met jesus lucas, the claimed father of the jessie. Jesus
and elsie was claimed to have an intimate relationship, causing elsie
to get pregnant with jessie. Elsie gave birth on mar 9 69 although
jesus was not indicated as the father in the cert of live birth of
jessie. It was jessies mother that relayed that jesus was jessies
father. Allegedly, jesus gave support for 2 years until elsie decided
to raise jessie by herself. Elsie tried to introduce jessie to jesus, but
was always in vain, attached was the cert of live birth, along with
several other documents.
Jessie thru counsel filed an urgent motion for hearing. The court
ordered that the petition be published in a newspaper of general
circulation over the country for 3 consecutive weeks.

Respondent filed a manifestation and comment that he was not

personally given a copy of the petition, and that the case was
adversarial in nature therefore, summons should be served to him.
Respondent was waving service of summons and voluntarily
appearing, and notice thru publication was improper due to the
confidentiality of the matter.
Respondent also avers that petitioner could not possibly personally
know of the matters since it was only relayed to him and dna
testing was wrong because the contents were mere allegations, also
jurisprudence was still unsettled as to the admissibility of dna
evidence.
The court dismissed the petition stating that in herrera vs alba,
there are 4 procedural aspects in a traditional paternity action. a
prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy,
and physical resemblance between the putative father and the child
Mr was filed, and was granted. A hearing was set. cErtiorari was
filed.
Ca decided that no jurisdiction over the respondent since summons
was not personally given. The special appearance was to question
jurisdiction, so there was no volunary submission to the jurisdiction
of the court. Since the 4 procedural matters were not met, there
was no prima facie case.

Jurisdiction: should a summons be issued to gain jurisdiction:

depends if the action is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
In personam: jurisdiction is needed. Lodged against a person for
personal liability.
In rem or : jurisdiction over the defendant not needed as long as
there is jurisdiction over the res. Directed over a specific thing.
Jurisdiction is obtained by seizure of the property by legal processes
or submission of a petition or complaint of which the court had
power
Quasi in rem: there is a defendant but over interest over a thing.
This case is an in rem proceeding, publication is to notify the whole
world. In this case, summons is merely to afford the defendant due
process. Failure to serve a copy of the summons does not divest the
court of jurisdiction, unless the defendant was given an opportunity
to oppose. In this case sc said that the defendant had the
opportuinity to oppose.

Montero vs montero

Elmer montero filed a complaint for declaration of the affidavit of

adjudication on the subject property, nullity of tax dec and titles.
Dominga was the 2nd wife of jose montero. Petitioner elmer is the
son of alfredo, one of the children of dominga. Dominga died
without a will, leaving a parcel of land in pilar abra, which was
issued a free patent over domingas name.
In 1993 elmer tried to pay for the property taxes over the subject
property, but was informed that the land was already in the name
of santiago montero, by way of an affidavit of self adjudication.
Santiago was the son of jose from his 1st marriage, and not related
to elmer by blood.
In 2002, santiago, with his children threatened to cause physical
harm elmer to acquire physical possession over a portion of the
land, then proceeded to dump materials for construction.

Santiago and charlie filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of

jurisdiction, they said that title to possession of and any interest
therein over property outside of mm should be over 20000 to be
placed under the jurisdiction of the rtc. The assessed value of the
property was only 3000. Elmer contends that the action is incapable
of pecuniary estimation. Santiago said that the action is a collateral
attack, and properties covered by the torrens systems should be
indefeasible.

Rtc denied the motion to dismiss. The case was incapable of

pecuniary estimation and that the complaint was a direct attack
over the title.

Santiago and charlie filed an mr but was denied. Then appealed to

the ca.
Ca granted the petition stating that indeed the case was title to
possession of and interest in real property. And since the amount
was 3010, the case was dismissed.
Mr and appeal by elmer.
Sc decision: ca is correct. Rtc didn’t have jurisdiction over the
subject matter since the amount was less than 20000.
Jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the complaint. In this
complaint and the releif sought. Ultimately, elmer was seeking to
obtain title over the property. In upholding the RTC's dismissal of
the action due to lack of jurisdiction, the Court therein explained
that "title" is different from a "certificate of title" which is the
document of ownership under the Torrens system of registration
issued by the government through the Register of Deeds. While
"title" gives the owner the right to demand or be issued a
"certificate of title," the holder of a certificate of title does not
necessarily possess valid title to the real property. The issuance of a
certificate of title does not give the owner any better title than what
he actually has in law.

Heirs of sebe vs heirs of sevilla.

The spouses sebe were allegedly made to sign documents that

turned out to be a deed of sale over 2 lots in dipolog city, and
confirmation of sale which were allegedly forged. Sebes did not
appear before the notary public. The assessed value of the lots were
9000 pesos. The case was filed with the rtc because accdg to them,
it was an action beyond pecuniary estimation.
Both the plaintiffs and defendants died, leaving their heirs to
represent them for the case. The case was dismissed because rtc
said that the case was for title to, possession of, or interest in real
property, and should be filed with the mtc since the value was
below 20000.
Decision: the sc upheld the order dismissing since it was in fact a
real action. Even if the title was for annulment of documents. The
action was for their legal rights over the property, which is tile to,
differentiated from the title issued for a lot under the torrens
system. Cert of title is evidence of legal title. This action therefore is
to ascertain who among the 2 parties are lawful owners of the
properties.
a claim of legal right to control, possess, dispose, or enjoy such
property, the action is a real action involving title to real property

First sarmiento prime holdings vs philippine communication bank

If the principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real

property, then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation.
However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum
of money or real property, even if a claim over a sum of money or
real property results as a consequence of the principal relief, the
action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

First sarmiento loaned 40m and increased to 100m from pbcom,

and mortgaged 1000+ titles. Allegedly, pbcom didn’t release the
amount loaned. Pbcom filed for an extra judicial foreclosure.
First sarmiento filed a complaint for the annulment of the mortage
agreement. It was at 1st rejected by the clerk of court since it didn’t
come with the tax declarations for the assessment of filing fees.
Thereafter, the complaint was admitted, the rtc stating that it was
an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
First sarmiento submitted a petition for TRO and preliminary
injunction, which was granted. 20 days later, the sheriff issued a
cert of sale.
The case was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to file the filing
fees, and indeed the action was a real action. Mr was denied, and
elevated to sc.

Decision: yes. Petitioner insists that the action was incapable of

pecuniary estimation since their main objective was to remove a
lien on the property. The assailed order was before the issuance of
a certificate of sale, hence, the property was not yet transferred to
the highest bidder, so there was no reconveyance sought.
when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether the
conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law.
Case was remanded back to rtc for the continuance of trial.
 Specific jurisdiction:
Omictin vs ca

Petitioner omictin filed 2 counts of estafa against respondent lagos

for failure to return 2 vehicles previously assigned to him, after
demand. Prosecutor indicted lagos. Lagos prayed for the inhibition
of the executive judge stating that the complainant and the judge
were seen together, and a motion for reinvestigation and to defer
the warrant of arrest.
Respondent filed a motion to defer the criminal case proceedings
pending a prejudicial question with the sec which were for the
declaration of nullity of the respondent as president and interim
operations manager of saag. Lagos said that the vehicles were held
in a fiduciary capacity as a director of saag.
Lagos motion denied, and the order assailed to the ca.

Ca said that in estafa, there should be demand. With the

controversy of the appointments, and the case that was submitted
to the sec, should the sec affirm that the appointments were invalid,
the criminal case would be dismissed for lacking an element in the
crime of estafa which was a valid demand. Ca suspended criminal
case proceedings.

Omictin questioned the same to the ca but was declared moot and
academic because. The sec case was transferred to rtc in 2001
pursuant to sc memo am. 00-11-03-sc.

In applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, whether it should

refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative
agency has determined some question or some aspect of some
question arising in the proceeding before the court. The court
cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to
resolving the same, where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge,
experience and services in determining technical and intricate
matters of fact. Ca is affirmed.

Fabian vs desierto

Teresita fabian was a major stock holder and president of promat

construction firm, while nestor agustin was a district engineer of
manila. The both got into a romantic relationship, so the district
engineer gave promat projects. When the relationship grew sour,
fabian tried to end the relationship, but agustin didn’t want to.
Eventually, fabian sued agustin administratively at the sandigan
bayan, office of the ombudsman.
The investigator assigned found agustin guilty, which had dismissal
from service as a penalty. The ombudsman later modified the
penalty as 1 yr suspension without pay. Mr was filed, and upon
learning that agustins new counsel was a close friend, he inhibited.
The deputy ombudsman acquitted agustin.
In appeal of the order acquiiting agustin, fabian raised that
ombudsmans decisions may be appealed to the sc via rule 45. she
points out that sec 7 rule 3 of admin order 7, as when the
respondent is absolved, those orders are not appealable. That rule
modified the supreme courts power, accdg to fabian. She appealed
citing rule 65 since rule 45 cast doubt if she could appeal. Rule 45
admits appeals of final orders form the ca, sandigan bayan, rtc,
whenever authorized by law can be appealed to the sc, for pure
questions of law. Appeals from the sandigan bayan must 1st be
presented to the ca by rule 43. sect 27 or ra 6770 is
unconstitutional.

Macalalag vs ombudsman

Complainant aloro filed with the ombudsman against respondent

macalalag. Aloro was a retired employee who recieves pensions
thru mail. He didn’t receive his checks for 3 months, prompting him
to inquire with the post office. They discovered that macalalag, a
postal employee encashed the checks for his own benefit. Macalalag
was directed to file an answer, but failed to do so 2x. he then sent
atelegram when the case was called for prelilinary conference, and
said that he would file a position paper, afterwhich the case would
be submitted for resolution. Macalalag again failed to file his
position paper, so the investigator resolved the case based on the
available evidence.
Petitioner filed for an appeal to the sc, but was dismissed. In the
interim, the ombudsmans decision became final. Petitioner filed a
petition to the ca claiming failure of his counsel to represent him.
Ca dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Because of the fabian
vs desierto case, it was said that the ca had jurisdiction for appeals
from the sandigan bayan under rule 43. petitioner contends that
rule 47 is appeals from rtcs used in its generic sense, and includes
quasi judicial bodies that are co equal to the rtc. Rule 47 is for
annulment of judgements in civil actions of the rtcs where ordinary
remedies such as new trial, appeal or other remedies could no
longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner. An
annulment of decision under rule 47 is a new case which is distinct
from the decision assailed of, only for extrinsic fraud.and the
remedy may not be invoked (1) where the party has availed himself
of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedy and lost therefrom, or (2) where he has failed
to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or
negligence.

Rapsing vs hon ables

Petitioners are the widows of the men who were killed at baleno,
masbate by members of the philippine army, claiming the killed to
be members of the npa.
An information was issued by the provincial prosecutors office of
masbate, and warrants were issued against the respondent military
men. Judge advocates general’s office submitted a motion to
transfer the case to the military tribunal. Initially, the motion was
denied, claiming that the accused have not been arrested, but the
mr was granted. The entire case folder was transmitted to the
commanding officer, 9th infantry division of the philippine army.
Petitioners sought for a mr, but was denied.

Decsion: determination of jurisdiction is based on the allegations of

the complaint, and not the defenses raised by the defendant. To do
so would depend on the defendant to ascertain jurisdiction.
Murder is under the jurisdiction of the rtc, and not included in ra
7055, as it has been claimed that the acts were service related.
Specifically those mentioned in art 54-70, 72-92, 95-97.

Julao vs sps de jesus

In the 60s, telesforio julao applied for 2 tsa applications. Telesforio

died in the 70s. the application was transferred in the name of his
heirs. In 1979, one of the heirs, solita julao sold his hereditary
share over the property covered by application v-6667 to
respondent de jesus. Respondents erected their house on the
subject land.
In 1996, denr made an order stating that only 1 tsa application is
allowed, hence, v-6667 was dropped. In 1998, an oct was issued in
the name of the heirs of telesforio julao.
In 1999, petitioners instituted a complaint for recovery of
possession over the property sold to the spouses de jesus stating
that they encroached 70 m of their property. That the property was
from v-2132, and v-6667 was denied by the denr. The spoused de
jesus proved that the property in both applications were in fact the
same property, and proved that solito was an heir.
Rtc decided that since the source of their right was the property in
appication v-6667, they had no right over the property.
Ca reversed the decision statiting that the complaint didn’t include
the tax dec over the properties, and that the properties were not
able to identify the property in question, thus, it cannot be proven
whether there was such an eccroachment absent there being proof
of the metes and bounds over the property. Jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations of the complaint, and since the
complaint is an action for recovery of possession, the tax dec should
be included to determine what court has jurisdiction.

Sc affirmed the sc and stated that even if jurisdiction is not raised

during the trial, it can be raised at any time. Defenses not raised
during trial are considered waived unless the defenses are lack of
jurisdiction, res judicata, prescription and litis pendentia.

Heirs of bautista vs lindo, et al.

The heirs of alfredo bautista inherited a property in davao

occidental. They subdivided the property and sold it to different
people in may 30 1991. in 1994, thee heirs filed a complaint with
the rtc for the repurchase of the property, hinged on section 119 of
the public land act, which provides that free patent and homestead
titles had the right of repurchase within 5 years from the sale. The
spouses lindo entered into a compromise agreement over the
portion they bought, while the others conted that prescription,
laches, estopel has set in.
the respondents argue that since the total sales price of the entire
property is only 16000 and since the selling price is always higher
than the assessed value, the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Rtc dismissed since accdg to them, the petitioner failed to allege the
value of the property.

Sc decided that the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation,

since it is in fact an action for specific performance. The
reacquisition of the lots are just an off shoot of the exertion of the
petitioners right to repurchase. The reconveyance of title over the
properties are incidental and solely dependent on the right to
repurchase.
Since the respondents have been aggressively defending their
position in court, they are now banned to question jurisdiction,
which is jurisdiction by estoppel.
 Paglaum vs unionbank

Section 1. Venue of real actions. – Actions affecting title to or

possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced
and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in

the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Sec. 3. When Rule not applicable. – This Rule shall not apply –

(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise;

or

(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing
of the action on the exclusive venue thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Sps. Lantin v. Lantion,34  this Court explained that a venue

stipulation must contain words that show exclusivity or
restrictiveness, as follows:

At the outset, we must make clear that under Section 4 (b) of Rule
4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rules on venue of
actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of the
action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The
mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough
to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The
parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In
the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should
be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place.

Amoguis vs ballado

The spouses ballado entered in a contract to sell over 2 properties

with st joseph realty. They paid a down payment and monthly
installments over the subject properties. In 1979, The ballados built
a small house on the properties for their caretaker, but was
informed by the collector for st joseph that that wasn’t allowed.
Payments will only be collected after the shanty was demolished.
The ballados took down the house. The collector promised to return
to collect after st joseph fixed their documents. The collector never
returned,

In 1987, the ballados were informed that their contract was

rescinded by st joseph. St joseph sent demands at the couples
vacant lots, and not their address of record. They were only able to
receive the last letter dated december 1986 when the letter was
addressed to them in handwriting, beside their vacant lots address
in typewriting. The ballados immiidiately sought for
reconsideration, including a check for 30000 for the worth of the
balance. St joseph returned the check after 6 months claiming
inadvertence in holding on to the check.

In feb 1987, st joseph sold the properties to the amoguis brothers

for cash. A title was issued to them. The amoguis brothers cleared
the property, but the ballados confronted them. The amoguis
brothers claimed to have bought the property from st joseph,

The ballados filed for a complaint for the annulment of title of the
amouguis brothers. St joseph answered that the the court had no
jurisdiction, and that the human settlements regulatory commission
had jurisdiction. The case was archived, and revived 5 years later.
The rtc decided in favor of the ballados stating fraud and bad faith
exercised by the amoguis brothers and st joseph.

Ca affirmed the rtcs decision, and modified the damages to be paid

by st joseph alone.

Sc: the correct jurisdiction is with the hlurb, jurisdiction is a

question of law that cannot be waived or lost thru estoppel.
Jurisdiction may be raised at any instance, even during appeal.

The respondents did question jurisdiction during trial with the Rtc.
And the questions raised fell in the jurisdiction of the hlurb. The law
creating and increasing the hlurbs jurisdiction mentioned that
questions that were formerly concurent with that of the rtc is now
solely under the hlurbs jurisdiction.

In estoppel by laches, a claimant has a right that he or she could otherwise

exercise if not for his or her delay in asserting it. This delay in the exercise of
the right unjustly misleads the court and the opposing party of its waiver.
Thus, to claim it belatedly given the specific circumstances of the case would
be unjust.

In summary, Tijam applies to a party claiming lack of subject matter

jurisdiction when:

(1) there was a statutory right in favor of the claimant;

 (2) the statutory right was not invoked;
an unreasonable length of time lapsed before the claimant
(3)
raised the issue of jurisdiction;
the claimant actively participated in the case and sought
(4)
affirmative relief from the court without jurisdiction;
the claimant knew or had constructive knowledge of which
(5)
forum possesses subject matter jurisdiction;
irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who
(6)
relied on the forum and the claimant's implicit waiver.

David vs calilung

Lucila married rene in 1981 and had 5 children. They had a house and lot in
sunset valley estate, angeles city. Their marriage was declared null and void
in 2005. the court also ordered that the division of their conjugal properties.
Neither of the parties divided the properties. Rene remarried, then died in
2015. renes new wife, cherry instituted a petition for the settlement of estate
of rene, which was raffled to br 56. the petition was opposed by lucila and her
children, claiming that the properties were never divided in accordance with
law and the decision rendered for the declaration of nullity of marriage.

The heirs also filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of
cherry and rene, stating that since new marriage was entered into without
dividing the properties. The case was raffled to branch 59, a family court. the
judge of the said court ordered a re raffle of the case stating that the action
was a collateral attack on the marriage, and therefore, not under the
jurisdiction of the family court. It was reraffled to branch 60. branch 60
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, stating that br 60 was no longer a
family court.

This dismissal was the basis for the appeal to the higher courts.

Sc decided that it was wrong for the re raffle of the case to a court of general
jurisdiction, because a case of declaration of nullity of marriage was an action
where the family court exercises original exclusive jurisdiction.

It was wrong for br 60 to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because it
was a family court. The proper reason for the dismissal should have been
because the petitioners lacked a cause of action. Only the husband and wife
are allowed to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

There is no res judicata in this case because the case was not decided on the
merits.

The proper action of the aggreived party was to question such fact in the
settlement proceedings, and not file a separate action to declare the marriage
of their father to cherry as null and void because the first court to gain
jurisdiction has the power to settle controversies submitted to it at the
exclusion of all other co equal courts.

Ku vs rcbc

Ku invested with rcbcs investent arm. After completing the contract, a certain
mgv was inserted in the contract as who introduced herself as the sales
director of rcbc, so ku relied on such information to believe that mgv was
authorized by rcbc. Mgv introduced arpo as an investment arm of rsec with
higher yields, which persuaded ku to invest in apro.

Rsec blacklisted mgv for executing unauthorized trades and allegedly was
able to divert funds of customers/clients to other accounts.

Ku wrote to rsec to return all of his investments, but rsec denied having any
relationship with apro. Ku filed a complaint for collection of the sum of money
and the shares. The case was raffled to branch 63. rsec filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction stating that the same is under the jurisdiction
of the commercial court and for failure to file filing fees. Branch 63 did not
dismiss, but had the case reraffled. Branch 149 ordered the payment of the
deficiency of docket fees, and that there was an indication of fraud, so ku
had a cause of action against rsec. Rsec filed for certiorari to ca for the order
denying the dismissal.

Ca dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Sc decision: the case was an ordiary civil action. The case was not an intra
corporate dispute as to necessitate it to be filed with a special commercial
court since Petitioner is neither a stockholder, partner, member or officer of
respondent corporation. The delegation of a special commercial court is a
matter of procedure only, and still exercises general jurisdiction. Such is a
procedural lapse, which doesn’t divest it with jurisdiction.

Docket fees were assessed by the docket clerk, such that there was absence
is bad faith in paying the same. The deficiency in docket fees can be paid
before the action has prescribed. The petition was granted and the rtc was
directed to continue with the hearings.

Geronimo vs calderon.

Estela and rodolfo calderon has their home located at silverland subdivision,
pasong tamo, quezon city. Across them live the geronimos, soon after, jonas,
a son of the geronimos constructed a building beside their house, the building
was used as a church. The church would produce loud music that irritated the
calderons so they complained with the HLURB, including the developers and
the homeowners association. The geronimos filed a motion to dismiss since
according to them, the issue was the abatement of a nuissance, and fell
under the jurisdiction of regular courts. Hlurb decided in favor of the
calderons and ordered the church from operating as such. The case was
appealed to the office of the president, which denied it, so the case was
appealed to the CA.

Ca dismissed the petition, stating that the contract to sell included that the
use of the lot shall only be used as a single family home, and the
enforcement of a contract to sell of real property was within the jurisdiction of
the hlurb.

Sc decision: the sc affirmed the ca

Victoria manufacturing union vs victoria manufacturing.

Vmc filed a question with the bir on the tax implications of agreed union
salaries. Vmc and its union agreed to include cola in its salaries, unlike the
wage order that says to add 15 pesos on top of salaries of these wage
earners. The bir stated that vmcs employees are now taxable because they
earn more than the minimum wage, thus vmc needs to withhold taxes due.

The union sought the assistance of the national concilliation and mediation
board on the matter. A voluntary arbiter was appointed, and stated that vmc
should retun the taxes withheld. Vmc appealed to the ca

Ca decision: the union argued that vmc could not question jurisdiction
because it agreed to voluntary submit its self to the jurisdiction of the arbiter,
and it actively participated in the arbitration proceedings.

Sc: jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, and is determined
from the allegations of the complaint, the same is true with administrative
bodies.

It is true that under the labor law, arbiters may acquire jurisdiction over
bargaining disputes and other labor disputes, however, it doesn’t have the
power to decide on tax related cases, as such is vested with the CIR. The
proper procedure was to file a refund with the CIR. Matters submitted to
admin bodies must be based on those of which they specialize.

Jurisdiction cannot be based on the stipulation of the parties. Vmc never

prayed for affirmative reliefs and questioned jurisdiction with the ca.

Pozon vs lopez

Diana lopez, along with her business partner purchased a property in

dasmarinas village makati from enrique zobel. The sale was brokered by a
certain raymundo. The property was immidiately possessed by lopez. Lopez
secured the services of beltran cuasay law offices for the documentation of
the sale, who was instructed to make a corporation in the name of paraiso
realty. However, atty beltran and raymundo made the corporation, and
named themselves as the stockholders. They made it appear that they
purchased the property from enrique zobel, instead of lopez, then sold it to
paraiso. They made it look that they sold it again to a certain nepomuceno,
then to tradex. It was discovered that tradex was a close friend of atty
beltran. Lopez later learned that the property was transferred in the name of
tradex, and being brokered by the same agent to the petitioners pozon.
Subsequently, the property was sold by tradex to the spouses pozon. Since
the property was possessed by lopez,

pozon filed a case for specific performance for lopez to vacate the property.
Cuasay raymundo and evangelista failed to present evidence during trial, so
the case was tried based on the available facts presented.

Lopez filed a case for quieting of title. Rtc decided in favor of lopez stating
that the sale was not evidenced by a board resolution, and lopez and pozon
met in hong kong before the sale, lopez stating she was the owner, pozon
immidiately going back to the philippines and telling raymundo they can no
longer wait for lopez to move out, ca also affirmed the decision.

The spouses pozon questions the fact that there were 2 decisions previously
made concerning the same property. The cases were to nullify the purchase
agreement of tradex to another company, and not related to the ownership of
lopez over the property. Even if the specific performance case touched on the
fact of ownership, lopez was not impleaded. The specific performance case
was an action in personam, so it is only effective against the parties in the
case.

The 2nd case was for the ejectment of lopez, which was filed with the metc of
makati, and affirmed by both the rtc and ca. An ejectment case is merely to
determine who has a better right to possess. Ownership may be delved
upon, but as to ascertain who has a better right to possess. Accordingly, it
was decided by the courts that the issue of ownership may be filed with the
RTC.

Korea technologies vs lerma et al.

Kogies is in the buisness of making lpg tank factories, while pacific steel is in
the business of steel. They entered into a contract where kogies would ship
and install lpg tank manufacturing machinery for 1.2m usd. Upon the
installation of and production of 11 kg tanks, pacific would pay kogies another
600k usd. Pacific leased a property with the intention of making the lpg plant
there. Kogies was paid the 1.2m usd. After, pacific encountered financial
difficulties, so they could not deliver steel materials for the manufacturing.
Kogies would be agreed to have fulfilled its obligation. The 600k usd was paid
using checks that were stopped by pacific. Pacific faxed kogies that they
delivered equipment of a different brand than that agreed upon, and that
they have not delivered equipment already paid. Pacific informed kogies that
they were rescinding the contract, and then filed a case of estafa against the
president of kogies. Kogies replied that pacific could not unilaterally rescind
the contract or dismantle their equipment. They stated that according to their
contract, they have to enter into arbitration with the korean commercial
arbirtration borard.
Kogies filed an action for specific performance against pacific, and had a tro
issued in their favor, which was later extended. Pacific opposed the tro
arguing that art 15 to submit the parties to arbirtration was divesting
philippine courts of their jurisdiction. The case was decided against kogies for
its application for a writ of injunction, rtc stating that since pacific already
paid for the full it was the owner thereof, and art 15 in the contract did divest
courts of their jurisdiction.

Pacific filed a motion to inspect whether kogies did deliver inferior equipment,
kogies opposed stating that the same was subject to art 15. the court granted
the motion subject of the certiorari.

Ca denied the petition since kogies did not wait for the resolution for the
urgent motion filed, which was the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
available to it.

Sc decision:

On the matter of non payment of pacific of the docket fees on the

counterclaims. The rule at the time the answer was filed was that
counterclaims are included in it. The rule now is docket fees should be paid
for counterclaims and cross claims.

Petition for certiorati and prohibition is valid in this case since there is no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to kogies.

Kogies was not guilty of forum shopping since the case was still pending with
the rtc. It only wants to nullify the order for the inspection of the plant, the
interlocutory order is a valid question the ca could overturn.

Arbitrations are encouraged by our courts. Infact, sec 2044 recognizes

arbitral awards. Since the contract was executed in the philippines, this law
governs. The stipulations in a contract are the law between the parties. They
are not against law or public policy. The philippines is a signatory to the
uncitral treaty, that allows arbitration is allowed. When the parties chose a
foreign arbitrator, the same is allowed.

Sec 35 of the uncitral is not immediately final and executory, the same must
be confirmed by the rtc for its recognition and enforcement.

If the application for rejection or suspension of enforcement of an award has

been made, the Regional Trial Court under the rules set by civil procedure.
may, if it considers it proper, vacate its decision and may also, on the
application of the party claiming recognition or enforcement of the award,
order the party to provide appropriate security.

Since such awards are judicially reviewable by our courts, arbitral awards do
not divest our courts with jurisdiction.
 Asia brewery and chalrie go vs equitable pci

Charlie go was the avp for finance of asia brewery. He was issued 16
instruments for 3+m, all bore the annotation “endorsed my equitable pci, all
prior endorsement and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed” all the
instruments except those issued by allied bank lucena city were cross checks.

Reymond keh, sales manager of asia brewery got possession of the

instruments named to go, got an account made in the name of go, deposited,
and withdrew the amounts. Keh fled the country before he could be convicted
in the philippines.

Go filed the case on the basis stated in associated bank vs ca, stating that the
possession of check on a forged or unauthorized indorsement is wrongful, and
when the money is collected on the check, the bank can be held for moneys
had and received

Equitable pci argues that the complaint failed to state a cause of action since
it didn’t specify that abi was a party to the instrument and since the
instuments were not delivered, go didn’t have a right or interet over them.

Rtc ruled in favor of equitable pci for lack of cause of action.

Sc decision: failure to state a cause of action is different from lack of cause of

action, in a case where the plaintiff lacks a cause of action, the motion to
dismiss should be dismissed after the plaintiff rests his case, while with failure
to state a cause of action, the motion to dismiss should be filed before filing a
responsive pleading.

The test in determining whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the
defendant,  1) the legal right of the plaintiff; 2) the correlative obligation of
the defendant not to violate the right; and 3) the act or omission of the
defendant in violation of that legal right

In this case, all 3 were present as alleged in the complaint. The case was
reinstated.

Riviera golf vs cca holdings

Riviera golf has a golf course, entered into a management contract with cca
holdings for 5 years at 16500 usd per month. They also entered into a royalty
agreement with afp for the use of ccas name and facilities for the sale of club
shares. Riviera defaulted from payment of the agreed amounts, thus cca
made claims. Riviera sent letters to cca for the pre termination of the
agreements, claiming financial crisis of afp.

Cca filed a complaint for collection of sum of money, which was compromised
with a statement that the compromise was not construed as a waiver to cca’s
cause of action against afp relative to the pre termination of their
agreements. Despite this, cca remained unpaid.

Cca filed another complaint for the collection of sum of money. This time,
riviera filed a motion to dismiss based on res judicata. Rtc dismissed stating
that their compromise agreement, the non waiver clause was qualified by the
phrase subject to whatever claims and defenses the defendant may have
thereto. The court ruled that the defenses are not only based on the legality
of the pre termination, but also all other claims and defenses, such as res
judicata.

Ca decision:

To determine the identity of the cause of action, the question is if the same
set of facts necessary to sustain the same suit, the ca held that there was a
difference in evidence in both suits.

There was no splitting of a single cause of action because cca violated

separate rights under their agreement.

Riviera has the right to seek damages because of their compromise

agreement.

Sc decision: for res judicata to be present, the court must have jurisdiction,
the decision was based on the merits that has became final and executory,
and the identity of the parties, subject matter, and causes of action. A
compromise agreement operates as an adjudication based on the merits.

While a cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, such reliefs cannot be
split, and cannot be divided in 2 or more actions. In the 1st case, it was filed
because of the failure of riviera to pay the agreed fees and amounts based on
their agreed contracts, while the second was for damages for the pre
termination of the same contracts. Both cases are hinged on the same
management contract, therefore, both cases have the same cause of action.
Because both cases are based on the same cause of action, the evidence to
be presented are also similar.

The breach of the agreement happened before the filing of the 1 st complaint,
and was total and complete. The grounds for the recovery of damages were
already existing at the time of filing. n contracts providing several obligations,
each obligation may give rise to a single and independent cause of action. But
if several obligations have matured, or if the entire contract is breached at
the time of the filing of the complaint, all obligations are integrated into one
cause of action. Hence, the claim arising from such cause of action that is not
included in the complaint is barred forever. 

The clause in their contract is allowing the splitting of actions and waiver of
res judicata, so it is void. The case is reinstated.

Taguig vs makati

Taguig filed a case against makati denominated as the judicial confirmation of

the territorial jurisdiction of taguig, and to question the constitutionality of
presidential proclamation 2475 and 518 at the rtc of pasig city, stating that
brgy embo and the inner fort was in their territorial jurisdiction. Rtc ruled in
favor of taguig, stating that certain laws are unconstitutional for diminishing
the land area of taguig without a plebicite, as required by sec 10 art 10 of the
constitution.

The case was appealed, citing that the court did not have jurisdiction, since
the judge sitting has already retired, and that the decision was ante dated. 3
of makatis legal counsels went to pasig to get a copy of the decision, but the
court said it was under review by the judge. A copy was then received under
protest, and a motion of reconsideration ad cautelam filed with the rtc.

Taguig filed a motion to dismiss since the conditions set forth in rule 47 has
not been complied with (ordinary remedies for new trial, mr, appeal was not
available), the appeal is unnecessary and premature, having an mr with the
rtc, and not having a certificate of forum shopping attached to it, since there
was an appeal with the ca. Makati filed its comment citing that there was no
need to wait for all other remedies to become unavailable since the court did
not have jurisdiction.

The pairing judge of the rtc court ruled on the motion ad cautelam, denying
the same, citing that the decision was based on sound facts. Another mr ad
cautelam was submitted to the ca. Ca decided in favor of taguig, stating that
the pairing judge agreed with the retired judge’s findings.

The only question now is on forum shopping. Makati filing a petition of

annulment of judgement with the ca, and the mr, which was the basis of
appeal existing simultaneously. Forum shopping is filing cases simultaneously
to get a better chance of gaining a favorable outcome from similar causes of
action, for the essentially the same reliefs.

A petition for annulment of judgement is a entirely different case from that

appealed judgement, for the purposes that there will be a new litigation,
where no ordinary remedies are available, without fault from the petitioner,
because of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process.

Petitions for annulment of judgments and motions for reconsiderations are

the same, that they both look to set aside judgments rendered, and
substantially seek for the same reliefs. Makati was found to be guilty of forum
shopping.

Seloza vs onshore strategic assets

In 2001, Seloza and first world homes entered in a contract to sell a house
and lot in valenzuela city. Seloza completed all his payments in 2004, but
onshore didn’t deliver the title. Unknown to selonza first world homes
mortgaged his property to united overseas bank. In 2006 united overseas
transfererred all its rights to onshore strategic. And exf was filed, onshore
being the only bidder. A cert of sale was issued to onshore. Seloza, upon
learning of the sale, filed for the nullification of the foreclosure sale, citing
that he had unregistered rights, and he was not informed. Onshore moved to
dismiss for not having first world as an indispensable party. Selonza and
other lot owners filed an omnibus motion to include first world as an
indispensable party to an action pending with the hlurb assailing the
mortgages made by 1st world. Rtc dismissed the case for forum shopping,
stating that there were similar parties, reliefs sought, and rights sought, and
judgment rendered in 1 decision will be res judicata on the other case. Ca
affirmed in toto.

Selonza argues that the question raised in the hlurb case is the validity of the
mortgage contract by 1st world, while with the annulment of judgment, it is
because he was not informed.

Sc decision: there was forum shopping. It is not necessary that the parties
are to be identical, only that the parties represent similar interests. By adding
1st world to as an indispensable party, selonza affirmed privity of interest with
united overseas bank. There are similar causes of action if similar evidence
will be used to sustain both cases. If the facts and evidence are the same,
there are similar causes of action, and judgment in the 1 st case is a bar in the
subsequent case.

The substance of the matterial allegations defines its cause of action.

Substance is all the material or essential elements to sufficiently state a good
cause of action invulnerable to attack or by general demurrer. Since the
petitioner himself agrees that hlurb is the proper authority to submit its
cause of action to, there is no reason to split the cause of action, bringing
incidents of the rem to the rtc. Denied.

Aure vs aquino

Aure lending and the spouses aquino entered into a sale over a property in
roxas quezon. After aure paying the aquinos, they did not vacate. Aquinos
countered by stating that they never got paid. Metc dismissed the complaint
for ejectment, for failure to comply with the barangay concilliation as a
condition precedent, among others. The court pronouned that since aure and
the aquinos live in the same barangay, they should seek barangay
concilliation 1st and that there was a question of ownership, so the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, and should be filed with the rtc.

Ca reversed the mtc and rtc decisions, remanding the case back to mtc for
the continuation of the trial, stating that brgy concilliation is not a
jurisdictional flaw, and will not affect the complaint since the aquinos failed to
question this matter in their answer. Also, a mere allegation of ownership
does not divest the mtc with jurisdiction, since the same is ascertained from
the allegations of the complaint.

Sc decision: to make pd 1508 truly effective, the brgy conciliation program

should be mandatory, to meet the ends sought by the law. This is also
integrated in the lgc where it states that no action shall be filed before such is
determined by the lupon or the pangkat, and that no settlement is reached,
or such settlement has been repudiated.

the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-

compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has
otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the
defendant. but the same would not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction
from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it, where the
defendants, as in this case, failed to object to such exercise of jurisdiction in
their answer and even during the entire proceedings a quo. The matter
should be submitted in their answer, reaching pre trial is too late. Section 1
rule 9 states that Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.Neither could the MeTC dismiss
Civil Case No. 17450 motu proprio. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide
only three instances when the court may motu proprio dismiss the claim, and
that is when the pleadings or evidence on the record show that (1) the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) there is another cause of
action pending between the same parties for the same cause; or (3) where
the action is barred by a prior judgment or by a statute of limitations. Thus, it
is clear that a court may not motu proprio dismiss a case on the ground of
failure to comply with the requirement for barangay conciliation, this ground
not being among those mentioned for the dismissal by the trial court of a
case on its own initiative.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the

complaint.