G.R. No. 174908 (Maslag v. Monzon)

8/24/23, 11:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698 8/24/23, 11:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
1:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
585
G.R. No. 174908. June 17, 2013.* VOL. 698, JUNE 17, 2013 585
DARMA MASLAG, petitioner, vs.
ELIZABETH MONZON, WILLIAM Maslag vs. Monzon
GESTON, and REGISTRY OF
DEEDS OF BENGUET, respondents.
civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure;
estimation; (2) In all civil actions which
Courts; Jurisdiction; Under the present
involve the title to, or possession of, real
state of the law, in cases involving title to
property, or any interest therein, where
real property, original and exclusive
the assessed value of the property involved
jurisdiction belongs to either the Regional
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos
Trial Court (RTC) or the Municipal Trial
(P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro
Court (MTC), depending on the assessed
Manila, where x x x the [assessed] value
value of the subject property.―Under the
[of the property] exceeds Fifty thousand
present state of the law, in cases involving
pesos ([P]50,000.00) except actions for
title to real property, original and
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer
exclusive jurisdiction belongs to either the
of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
RTC or the MTC, depending on the
over which is conferred upon Metropolitan
assessed value of the subject property.
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; x x x x
Blg. (BP) 129, as amended by Republic Act
SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
(RA) No. 7691, provides: Sec. 19.
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Jurisdiction in civil cases.—Regional Trial
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil
Courts shall exercise exclusive original
Cases.―Metropolitan Trial Courts,
jurisdiction: (1) In all
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/29 https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/29
8/24/23, 11:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698 8/24/23, 11:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: x x x x It is done by filing a Petition for Review
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all with the CA. Simply put, the distinction
civil actions which involve title to, or between these two modes of appeal lies in
possession of, real property, or any the type of jurisdiction exercised by the
interest therein where the assessed value RTC in the Order or Decision being
of the property or interest therein does not appealed.
exceed Twenty thousand pesos Same; Same; Courts; Jurisdiction;
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
Manila, where such assessed value does conferred only by law and it is “not within
not exceed Fifty thousand pesos the courts, let alone the parties, to
(P50,000.00) x x x. themselves determine or conveniently set
Same; Same; Appeals; There are two aside.”―It cannot be overemphasized that
modes of appealing an Regional Trial jurisdiction over the
Court (RTC) decision or resolution on
issues of fact and law. The first mode is an 586
ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases
where the RTC exercised its original
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
jurisdiction. It is done by filing a Notice of
ANNOTATED
Appeal with the RTC. The second mode is a
petition for review under Rule 42 in cases Maslag vs. Monzon
where the RTC exercised its appellate
jurisdiction over Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) decisions.―There are two modes of subject matter is conferred only by law
appealing an RTC decision or resolution on and it is “not within the courts, let alone
issues of fact and law. The first mode is an the parties, to themselves determine or
ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases coveniently set aside.” Neither would the
where the RTC exercised its original active participation of the parties nor
jurisdiction. It is done by filing a Notice of estoppel operate to confer original and
Appeal with the RTC. The second mode is exclusive jurisdiction where the court or
a petition for review under Rule 42 in tribunal only wields appellate jurisdiction
cases where the RTC exercised its over the case. Thus, the CA is correct in
appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions. holding that the proper mode of appeal
should have been a Petition for Review Resolution, the determinative factor is the
under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, and type of jurisdiction actually exercised by
not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. the RTC in rendering its Decision or
Same; Same; Same; Same; Appeals; In Resolution. Was it rendered by the RTC in
determining the proper mode of appeal the exercise of its original jurisdiction, or
from an Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction?
Decision or Resolution, the determinative In short, we look at what type of
factor is the type of jurisdiction actually jurisdiction was actually exercised by the
exercised by the RTC in rendering its RTC. We do not look into what type of
Decision or Resolution. Was it rendered by jurisdiction the RTC should have
the RTC in the exercise of its original exercised. This is but logical. Inquiring
jurisdiction, or in the exercise of its into what the RTC should have done in
appellate jurisdiction?―To reiterate, only disposing of the case is a question which
statutes can confer jurisdiction. Court already involves the merits of the appeal,
issuances cannot seize or appropriate but we obviously cannot go into that where
jurisdiction. It has been repeatedly held the mode of appeal was improper to begin
that “any judgment, order or resolution with.
issued without [jurisdiction] is void and
PETITION for review on certiorari of
cannot be given any effect.” By parity of
the resolutions of the Court of
reasoning, an order issued by a court
Appeals.
declaring that it has original and exclusive
The facts are stated in the opinion
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
of the Court.
case when under the law it has none
cannot likewise be given effect. It amounts 587
to usurpation of jurisdiction which cannot
be countenanced. Since BP 129 already
apportioned the jurisdiction of the MTC VOL. 698, JUNE 17, 2013 587
and the RTC in cases involving title to Maslag vs. Monzon
property, neither the courts nor the
petitioner could alter or disregard the Law Firm of Avila, Reyes,
same. Besides, in determining the proper Licnachan, Maceda, Lim, Arevalo &
mode of appeal from an RTC Decision or Libiran for petitioner.
Francisco S. Reyes Law Office for property with declaration of nullity of

respondents. original certificate
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

_______________
“It is incumbent upon x x x
1 Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. v.
appellants to utilize the correct mode
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112066, June 27,
of appeal of the decisions of trial courts
1994, 233 SCRA 460, 464. Citations omitted.
to the appellate courts. In the mistaken
2 Rollo, pp. 11-26.
choice of their remedy, they can blame
3 Id., at pp. 44-45; penned by Associate
no one but themselves.”1
Justice Lucenito N. Tagle and concurred in by
This is a Petition for Review on
Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and
Certiorari2 of the May 31, 2006
Regalado E. Maambong.
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals
4 Id., at p. 45. Emphases in the original.
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 83365, which
dismissed petitioner Darma Maslag’s 5 Id., at pp. 51-52.
(petitioner) ordinary appeal to it for 6 CA Rollo, pp. 75-77.

being an improper remedy. The
588
Resolution disposed of the case as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the Motion to ANNOTATED
Dismiss is GRANTED, and the
Maslag vs. Monzon
Appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.4
of title (OCT) against respondents
The Petition also assails the CA’s Elizabeth Monzon (Monzon), William
September 22, 2006 Resolution5 Geston and the Registry of Deeds of
denying petitioner’s Motion for La Trinidad, Benguet. The Complaint
6
Reconsideration. was filed before the Municipal Trial
Factual Antecedents Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet.
In 1998, petitioner filed a After trial, the MTC found
Complaint7 for reconveyance of real respondent Monzon guilty of fraud in
obtaining an OCT over petitioner’s
8
property. It ordered her to reconvey shown in Exhibit “F-2”, which was fraudulently
the said property to petitioner, and to included in her title;
pay damages and costs of suit.9 2. To pay the plaintiff the amount of Five
Respondents appealed to the Thousand [P5,000.00] Pesos as exemplary
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La damages and Five Thousand [P5,000.00] Pesos
Trinidad, Benguet. as attorney’s fees;
After going over the MTC records 3. Costs of this suit.
and the parties’ respective SO ORDERED. Id., at p. 172.
memoranda, the RTC of La Trinidad, 10 Id., at pp. 273-274.
Benguet, Branch 10, through Acting
Presiding Judge Fernando P. Cabato 589
(Judge Cabato), issued its October 22,

2003 Order,10 declaring the MTC VOL. 698, JUNE 17, 2013 589
without jurisdiction over petitioner’s
Maslag vs. Monzon
cause of action. It further held that it
will take cognizance of the case
pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the SECTION 8. Appeal from
Rules of Court, which reads: orders dismissing case without trial;
lack of jurisdiction.—x x x
If the case was tried on the merits
_______________
by the lower court without
7 Records, pp. 1-5.
jurisdiction over the subject matter,
8 See Judgment dated June 11, 2001 penned
the Regional Trial Court on appeal
by Judge Agapito K. Laogan, Jr., id., at pp. 166-
shall not dismiss the case if it has
172.
original jurisdiction thereof, but
9 The fallo of the MTC Judgment reads:
shall decide the case in accordance
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
with the preceding section, without
in favor of the plaintiff and hereby orders the
prejudice to the admission of
defendant Elizabeth Monzon, as follows:
amended pleadings and additional
1. To reconvey that portion of the property
evidence in the interest of justice.
now covered by OCT P-3034, belonging to the
plaintiff with an area of 4415 square meters as Both parties acknowledged receipt of
the October 22, 2003 Order,11 but
neither presented additional evidence 12 Id., at p. 282.

before the new judge, Edgardo B. Diaz 13 Id., at pp. 283-288.
De
12
Rivera, Jr. (Judge Diaz De Rivera). 14 Id., at p. 288.
On May 4, 2004, Judge Diaz De 15 Id., at p. 290.
Rivera issued a Resolution13
reversing the MTC Decision. The 590
fallo reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Judgment 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

appealed from the Municipal Trial ANNOTATED
Court of La Trinidad, Benguet is set Maslag vs. Monzon
aside. [Petitioner] is ordered to turn
over the possession of the 4,415 Petitioner assailed the RTC’s May
square meter land she presently 4, 2004 Resolution for reversing the
occupies to [Monzon]. This case is MTC’s factual findings16 and prayed
remanded to the court a quo for that the MTC Decision be adopted.
further proceedings to determine Her prayer before the CA reads:
whether [Maslag] is entitled to the
remedies afforded by law to a WHEREFORE, premises
builder in good faith for the considered, it is most respectfully
improvements she constructed prayed that the decision of the
thereon. Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of
No pronouncement as to damages La Trinidad, Benguet, appealed from
and costs. be reversed in toto and that the
SO ORDERED.14 Honorable Court adopt the decision
of the Municipal Trial Court.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal15 Further reliefs just and equitable
from the RTC’s May 4, 2004 under the premises are prayed for.17
Resolution.
Respondents moved to dismiss
_______________
petitioner’s ordinary appeal for being
11 Id., dorsal portion of p. 273.
the improper remedy. They asserted
that the proper mode of appeal is a
Petition for Review under Rule 42 Maslag vs. Monzon

because the RTC rendered its May 4,
2004 Resolution in its appellate The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for
jurisdiction.18 Reconsideration in its September 22,
Ruling of the Court of Appeals 2006 Resolution:21
The CA dismissed petitioner’s
appeal. It observed that the RTC’s A perusal of the May 4, 2004
May 4, 2004 Resolution (the subject Resolution of the RTC, which is the
matter of the appeal before the CA) set subject matter of the appeal, clearly
aside an MTC Judgment; hence, the reveals that it took cognizance of the
proper remedy is a Petition for Review MTC case in the exercise of its
under Rule 42, and not an ordinary appellate jurisdiction. Consequently,
appeal.19 as We have previously enunciated,
Petitioner sought reconsideration.20 the proper remedy, is a petition for
She argued, for the first time, that the review under Rule 42 and not an
RTC rendered its May 4, 2004 ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
Resolution in its original jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, premises
She cited the earlier October 22, 2003 considered, the instant Motion for
Order of the RTC declaring the MTC Reconsideration is DENIED. The
without jurisdiction over the case. May 31, 2006 Resolution of this
Court is hereby AFFIRMED in
_______________
toto.
16 CA Rollo, pp. 38-50.
SO ORDERED.22
17 Id., at p. 50.
Hence this Petition wherein
18 Id., at pp. 58-64. petitioner prays that the CA be
19 Id., at pp. 73-74. ordered to take cognizance of her
20 Id., at pp. 75-77. appeal.23
Issues
591
Petitioner set forth the following
issues in her Petition:
VOL. 698, JUNE 17, 2013 591

WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF

APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 10 OF LA
THE PETITIONER, CONSIDERING TRINIDAD, BENGUET, WHEN IT
THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DECIDED A CASE APPEALED BEFORE
BRANCH 10 OF LA TRINIDAD, IT UNDER THE PROVISION OF
BENGUET HELD THAT THE ORIGINAL SECTION 8, RULE 40 OF THE RULES
COMPLAINT AS FILED BEFORE THE OF COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF LA TO THE COURSE OF REMEDY THAT
TRINIDAD, BENGUET WAS DECIDED MAY BE AVAILED OF BY THE
BY THE LATTER WITHOUT ANY PETITIONER — A PETITION FOR
JURISDICTION AND, IN ORDERING REVIEW UNDER RULE 42 OR AN
THAT THE CASE SHALL BE DECIDED ORDINARY APPEAL UNDER RULE 41.24
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION OF
SECTION 8 OF RULE 40 OF THE Our Ruling
RULES OF COURT, IT DECIDED THE In its October 22, 2003 Order, the
CASE NOT ON ITS APPELLATE RTC declared that the MTC has no
JURISDICTION BUT ON ITS ORIGINAL jurisdiction over the subject matter of
JURISDICTION the case based on the supposition that
the same is incapable of pecuniary
_______________
estimation. Thus, following Section 8,
21 Rollo, pp. 51-52.
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, it took
22 Id., at p. 52.
cognizance of the case and directed
23 Id., at p. 23.
the parties to adduce further evidence
if they so desire. The parties bowed to
592 this ruling of the RTC and, eventually,
submitted the case for its decision
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS after they had submitted their
ANNOTATED respective memoranda.
Maslag vs. Monzon
We cannot, however, gloss over this
jurisdictional faux pas of the RTC.
Since it involves a question of

jurisdiction, we may motu proprio that those who were interested to

review and pass upon the same even have their lands titled, will
at this late stage of the proceedings.25 contribute to a common fund for the
In her Complaint26 for surveying and subsequent titling of
reconveyance of real property with the land;
declaration of nullity of OCT, 8. Since plaintiff had, for so
petitioner claimed that she and her long, yearned for a title to the land
father had been in open, continuous, she occupies, she contributed to the
notorious and exclusive possession of amount being requested by
the disputed property since the 1940’s. Elizabeth Monzon;
She averred: 9. A subdivision survey was
made and in the survey, the
_______________ respective areas of the plaintiff and
24 Id., at p. 19. the defendants were defined and
25 Zarate v. Commission on Elections, 376
delimited — all for purposes of
titling. x x x
Phil. 722, 726; 318 SCRA 608, 612 (1999).
10. But alas, despite the
26 Records, pp. 1-5.
assurance of subdivided titles, when
593 the title was finally issued by the
Registry of Deeds, the same was
only in the name of Elizabeth
VOL. 698, JUNE 17, 2013 593
Monzon and WILLIAM GESTON.
Maslag vs. Monzon The name of Darma Maslag was
fraudulently, deliberately and in bad
7. Sometime in the year 1987, faith omitted. Thus, the title to the
Elizabeth Monzon, the owner of the property, to the extent of 18,295
adjacent parcel of land being square meters, was titled solely in
occupied by plaintiff [Maslag], the name of ELIZABETH MONZON.
informed the plaintiff that the
respective parcels of land being As a relief, petitioner prayed that
claimed by them can now be titled. A Monzon be ordered to reconvey the
suggestion was, thereafter made, portion of the property which she

28
claimed was fraudulently included in Pertinent provisions of Batas
Monzon’s title. Her primary relief was Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129,29 as
to recover ownership of real property. amended by Republic Act (RA) No.
Indubitably, petitioner’s complaint 7691,30 provides:
involves title to real property. An
action “involving title to real Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil
property,” on the other hand, was cases.—Regional Trial Courts shall
defined as an action where “the exercise exclusive original
plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a jurisdiction:
claim that [she] owns such property or (1) In all civil actions in which
that [she] has the legal rights to have the subject of the litigation is
exclusive control, possession, incapable of pecuniary estimation;
enjoyment, or disposition of the same.” (2) In all civil actions which
27
Under the present state of the law, involve the title to, or possession of,
in cases involving title to real real property, or any interest
property, original and exclusive therein, where the assessed value of
jurisdiction belongs to either the RTC the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
or for civil actions in Metro Manila,
_______________
where x x x the [assessed] value [of
27 Heirs of Generoso Sebe v. Heirs of Veronico
the property] exceeds Fifty thousand
Sevilla, G.R. No. 174497, October 12, 2009, 603
pesos ([P]50,000.00) except actions
SCRA 395, 404. for forcible entry into and unlawful
594 detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon Metropolitan Trial
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
ANNOTATED Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
Maslag vs. Monzon xxxx
SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Trial Courts,
or the MTC, depending on the
Municipal Trial Courts and
assessed value of the subject property.
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,

Civil Cases.―Metropolitan Trial where such assessed value does not
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and exceed Fifty thousand pesos
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall (P50,000.00) x x x.
exercise:
xxxx In the case at bench, annexed to
(3) Exclusive original the Complaint is a Declaration of Real
jurisdiction in all civil actions which Property31 dated November 12, 1991,
involve title to, or possession of, real which was later marked as petitioner’s
prop- Exhibit “A”,32 showing that the
disputed property has an assessed
_______________
value of P12,40033 only. Such assessed
28 Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa
value of the property is well within
Reterta v. Spouses Lorenzo Mores and Virginia Lopez,
the jurisdiction of the MTC. In fine,
G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 580,
the RTC, thru Judge Cabato, erred in
598-599.
applying Section 19(1) of BP 129 in
29 The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
determining which court has
30 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the
jurisdiction over the case and in
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
pronouncing that the MTC is divested
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending For
of original and exclusive jurisdiction.
the Purpose Batas Pambansa, Blg. 129, otherwise
This brings to fore the next issue of
Known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.”
whether the CA was correct in
dismissing petitioner’s appeal.
595 Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of
Court provides for the dismissal of an
VOL. 698, JUNE 17, 2013 595 improper appeal:
Maslag vs. Monzon SECTION 2. Dismissal of
improper appeal to the Court of
erty, or any interest therein where Appeals.—An appeal under Rule 41
the assessed value of the property or taken from the Regional Trial Court
interest therein does not exceed to the Court of Appeals raising only
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) questions of law shall be dismissed,
issues purely of law not being the RTC. The second mode is a
reviewable by said court. Similarly, petition for review under Rule 42
an appeal by notice of appeal in cases where the RTC exercised its
instead of by petition for review appellate jurisdiction over MTC
from the appellate judgment of a decisions. It is done by filing a Petition
Regional Trial Court shall be for Review with the CA. Simply put,
dismissed. the distinction between these two
An appeal erroneously taken to modes of appeal lies in the type of
the Court of Appeals shall not be jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in
transferred to the appropriate court the Order or Decision being appealed.
but shall be dismissed outright. As discussed above, the MTC has
(Emphasis supplied) original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case; hence,
_______________ there is no other way the RTC could
31 Records, p. 80. have taken cognizance of the case and
32 Id. review the court a quo’s Judgment
33 Id., at dorsal portion. except in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. Besides, the new RTC
596 Judge who penned the May 4, 2004
Resolution, Judge Diaz de Rivera,
actually treated the case as an appeal
despite the October 22, 2003 Order.
ANNOTATED
He started his Resolution by stating,
Maslag vs. Monzon “This is an appeal from the Judgment
rendered by the Municipal Trial Court
There are two modes of appealing (MTC) of La Trinidad Benguet”35 and
an RTC decision or resolution on then proceeded to discuss the merits
issues of fact and law.34 The first of the “appeal.” In the dispositive
mode is an ordinary appeal under portion of said Resolution, he reversed
Rule 41 in cases where the RTC the MTC’s findings and conclusions
exercised its original jurisdiction. It is and remanded residual issues for trial
done by filing a Notice of Appeal with with the MTC.36 Thus, in fact and in
law, the RTC Resolution was a and exclusive jurisdiction where the
continuation of the proceedings that court or tribunal only wields appellate
originated from the MTC. It was a jurisdiction over the case.38 Thus, the
judgment issued by the RTC in the CA is correct in holding that the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. proper mode of appeal should have
With regard to the RTC’s earlier been a Petition for Review under Rule
October 22, 2003 Order, the same 42 of the Rules of Court, and not an
should be disregarded for it produces ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
no effect (other than to confuse the Seeing the futility of arguing
parties whether the RTC was invested against what the RTC actually did,
with original or appellate jurisdiction). petitioner resorts to arguing for what
It cannot be overemphasized that the RTC should have done. She
jurisdiction over the subject matter is maintains that the RTC should have
issued its May 4, 2004 Resolution in
_______________ its original jurisdiction because it had
34 Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco, G.R. No. earlier ruled that the MTC had no
175291, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 643, 651. jurisdiction over the cause of action.
35 Records, p. 283. Petitioner’s argument lacks merit.
36 Id., at p. 288. To reiterate, only statutes can confer
jurisdiction. Court issuances cannot
597 seize or appropriate jurisdiction. It
has been repeatedly held that “any
judgment, order or resolution issued
VOL. 698, JUNE 17, 2013 597
without [jurisdiction] is void and
Maslag vs. Monzon cannot be given any effect.”39 By
parity of reasoning, an order issued by
conferred only by law and it is “not a court declaring that it has original
within the courts, let alone the and exclusive jurisdiction over the
parties, to themselves determine or subject matter of the case when under
coveniently set aside.”37 Neither would the law it has none cannot likewise be
the active participation of the parties given effect. It amounts to usurpation
nor estoppel operate to confer original of jurisdiction which cannot be
countenanced. Since BP 129 already jurisdiction? In short, we look at what

apportioned the jurisdiction of the type of jurisdiction was actually
MTC and the RTC in cases involving exercised by the RTC. We do not look
title to property, neither the courts into what type of jurisdiction the RTC
nor the petitioner could alter or should have exercised. This is but
disregard the same. Besides, in logical. Inquiring into what the RTC
determining the proper mode of should have done in disposing of the
appeal from an RTC Decision or case is a question which already
Resolution, the determinative factor is involves the merits of the appeal, but
the type of jurisdiction actually we obviously cannot go into that
exercised by the RTC in where the mode of appeal was
improper to begin with.
_______________ WHEREFORE, premises
37 Lozon v. National Labor Relations considered, the Petition for Review is
Commission, 310 Phil. 1, 13; 240 SCRA 1, 11 DENIED for lack of merit. The
(1995) cited in Magno v. People, G.R. No.
assailed May 31, 2006 and September
22, 2006 Resolutions of the Court of
171542, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 362, 371.
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83365 are
38 Suarez v. Saul, 510 Phil. 400, 410; 473
AFFIRMED.
SCRA 628, 637-638 (2005).
SO ORDERED.
39 Magno v. People, supra.
598 Carpio (Chairperson), Brion,

Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Petition denied, resolutions

ANNOTATED affirmed.
Maslag vs. Monzon
Notes.―The correct mode of appeal
from a decision of the Regional Trial
rendering its Decision or Resolution. Court (RTC) rendered in the exercise
Was it rendered by the RTC in the of its appellate jurisdiction is a
exercise of its original jurisdiction, or petition for review in accordance with
in the exercise of its appellate Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. (
8/24/23, 11:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698
Dadizon vs. Court of Appeals, 601

SCRA 351 [2009])
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. (Republic vs.
Bantigue Point Development
Corporation, 668 SCRA 158 [2012])
――o0o――
© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 29/29

G.R. No. 174908 (Maslag v. Monzon)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 174908 (Maslag v. Monzon)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/24/23, 11:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698 8/24/23, 11:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME

1:56 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698

Francisco S. Reyes Law Office for property with declaration of nullity of

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

(petitioner) ordinary appeal to it for 6 CA Rollo, pp. 75-77.

(Judge Cabato), issued its October 22,

neither presented additional evidence 12 Id., at p. 282.

WHEREFORE, the Judgment 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Petition for Review under Rule 42 Maslag vs. Monzon

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/29 https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/29

WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/29 https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/29

jurisdiction, we may motu proprio that those who were interested to

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/29 https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a25b1d5923931040d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/29

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,

countenanced. Since BP 129 already jurisdiction? In short, we look at what

598 Carpio (Chairperson), Brion,

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Petition denied, resolutions

Dadizon vs. Court of Appeals, 601

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like