Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abad, et. al. v. RTC of Manila, et. al. G.R. No. L-65505,
October 12, 1987
Jurisdiction, once it attaches, cannot be ousted by the
happening of subsequent events even of such character
which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
the first instance. The rule of adherence of jurisdiction
(exists) until a cause is finally resolved or adjudicated.
Fe V. Rapsing, Tita C. Villanueva and Annie F. Aparejado,
represented by Edgar Aparejado Vs. Hon. Judge
Maximino R. Ables, of RTC-Branch 47, Masbate City;
SSGT. Edison Rural, et al. G.R. No. 171855. October 15,
2012
It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case is conferred by law and
is determined by the allegations of the complaint
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a
necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot
be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer
or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question
of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the
defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is
the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the
allegations in the complaint. The averments in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought are the
matters to be consulted.
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968
A party may be barred from raising the defense of lack of
jurisdiction or jurisdiction may be waived on the ground of
estoppel by laches. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and,
after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction.
Concha v. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12,
2007
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for
reconveyance of, or for cancellation of title, to or to quiet
title over real property are actions that fall under the
classification of cases that involve title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein.
Heirs of Telesforo Julao v. Spouses De Jesus, G.R. No.
176020, September 29, 2014
The assessed value must be alleged in the complaint to
determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law and is determined by the
allegations in the complaint, which contains the concise
statement of the ultimate facts of a plaintiffs cause of action.
Flores v. Mallare-Philips, L-66620, September 24, 1986
Where there are several claims or causes of action between
the same or different parties embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of
the claims in all causes of action, irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.
REMEDIAL LAW MRC AY 15-16 | 1
Deeds Of Cebu City And Cebu Province, $J. King & Sons
Co., Inc. Intervenor, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012
Civil Case No. 01-1567, being an action for Annulment of
Sale and Titles resulting from the extrajudicial foreclosure
by Union Bank of the mortgaged real properties, is classified
as a real action. In Fortune Motors v. Court of Appeals, this
Court held that a case seeking to annul a foreclosure of a real
estate mortgage is a real action, viz: An action to annul a real
estate mortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an
action to annul a private sale of real property. (Muoz v.
Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950). While it is true that petitioner
does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of
the property in question, his action for annulment of sale
and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the
issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is
considered immovable property, the recovery of which is
petitioners primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is
that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of
real property does not operate to efface the fundamental
and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to
recover said real property. It is a real action.
Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs.
Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March 5, 2012
The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as
constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting
the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in
accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Stated
differently, if the allegations in the complaint furnish
sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained,
the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense
that may be asserted by the defendant.
SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING v. ALEXANDER
CHOACHUY, SR. and ALLAN CHOACHUY. G.R. No.
179736, June 26, 2013.
The allegation of petitioners that they are not the owners of
the subject property, thus making them unable to remove
the installed surveillance cameras on the corporations
building, cannot be upheld especially when the corporation
who is managed by the family of petitioners. They are thus
considered parties-in-interest in the present case.
HEIRS OF FAUSTINO MESINA and GENOVEVA S. MESINA,
rep. by NORMAN MESINA v. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN,
SR., rep. by THERESA FIAN YRAY, et al. G.R. No. 201816,
April 8, 2013
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for
the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial
proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be
added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the
tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an
indispensable party despite the order of the court, that
court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to
comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the nonparty claimed to be indispensable.
Living @ Sense, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Company,
Inc. G.R. No. 193753. September 26, 2012
REMEDIAL LAW MRC AY 15-16 | 2
compromise has been made but had failed is not one of the
exceptions.
Go v. Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 58986, April 17, 1983
What causes the loss by a plaintiff of the right to effect
dismissal of the action by mere notice is not the filing of the
defendants answer with the court but the service on the
plaintiff of said answer or of a motion for summary
judgment. Where the plaintiff filed the notice of dismissal of
his action in the court after the filing of defendants answer
but before service thereof, the plaintiffs notice to that effect
ipso facto brought about the dismissal of the pending action
without need of any order from the trial court
VIRGINIA S. DIO and H.S. EQUITIES, LTD vs. SUBIC BAY
MARINE EXPLORATORIUM, INC., represented by its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, TIMOTHY
DESMOND G.R. No. 189532, June 11, 2014
Petitioners filed counterclaim against respondents.
However, the latter alleged that the dismissal of the main
action results to the dismissal of the counterclaims. The
Court ruled that as the rule now stands, the nature of the
counterclaim notwithstanding, the dismissal of the
complaint does not ipso jure result in the dismissal of the
counterclaim, and the latter may remain for independent
adjudication of the court, provided that such counterclaim,
states a sufficient cause of action and does not labor under
any infirmity that may warrant its outright dismissal. Stated
differently, the jurisdiction of the court over the
counterclaim that appears to be valid on its face, including
the grant of any relief thereunder, is not abated by the
dismissal of the main action. The courts authority to
proceed with the disposition of the counterclaim
independent of the main action is premised on the fact that
the counterclaim, on its own, raises a novel question which
may be aptly adjudicated by the court based on its own
merits and evidentiary support.
Natividad Lim vs. National Power Corporation, Sps.
Roberto Ll. Arcinue and Arabela Arcinue, G.R. No.
178789. November 14, 2012
Lim points out that an answer-in-intervention cannot give
rise to default since the filing of such an answer is only
permissive. But Section 4, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure requires the original parties to file an answer to
the complaint-in-intervention within 15 days from notice of
the order admitting the same, unless a different period is
fixed by the court. This changes the procedure under the
former rule where such an answer was regarded as
optional. Thus, Lims failure to file the required answer can
give rise to default.
STA. RITA & CO., INC. AND ARLENE STA. RITA KANAPI v.
ANGELINE M. GUECO. G.R. No.193078, August 28, 2013
Persons who are not parties to a case, either as petitioners,
defendants or intervenors, they cannot participate in the
proceedings of the same. Consequently, they also cannot be
adversely affected by the outcome of such proceeding. A
complaint-in-intervention cannot be treated as an
Lt. Gen. Ligot, et al. filed a petition for certiorari when the
CA extended the freeze order against their properties. Ligot,
et al. should have filed a petition for review on certiorari,
and not a petition for certiorari, to assail the CA resolution
which extended the effectivity period of the freeze order
over their properties.
THE CITY OF MANILA vs. HON. CARIDAD H. GRECIACUERDO. G.R. NO. 175723 , February 4, 2014
The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs
of certiorari involves the exercise of original jurisdiction
which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or
by law and cannot be implied from the mere existence of
appellate jurisdiction. On the strength of the constitutional
provisions under Article VIII, it can be fairly interpreted
that the power of the CTA includes that of determining
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within
the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court. It, thus,
follows that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is vested
with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these cases.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456
Phil. 755
The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision
of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Revised Rules of Court. On the other hand, if the error
subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act
complained of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or
agency with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the
aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the said Rules.
Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, December 18,
2008
The Court has already likened a proceeding under Section
78 to a quo warranto proceeding since they both deal with
the eligibility or qualification of a candidate. The distinction
mainly in the fact that a Section 78 under Section 253 of
the OEC, petition is filed before proclamation, while a
petition for quo warranto is filed after proclamation of the
winning candidate
Spouses Rosales v. Spouses Alfonso, G.R. No. 137792,
August 12, 2003
This is the mortgagors equity (not right) of redemption
which, as above stated, may be exercised by him even
beyond the 90-day period from the date of service of the
order, and even after the foreclosure sale itself, provided it
be before the order of confirmation of the sale. After such
order of confirmation, no redemption can be effected any
longer.
Sepulveda v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195, January 31, 2005
Thus, all the co-heirs and persons having an interest in the
property are indispensable parties; as such, an action for
partition will not lie without the joinder of the said parties.
The mere fact that Pedro Sepulveda, Sr. has repudiated the
REMEDIAL LAW MRC AY 15-16 | 11
Estate of Olave vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-29407 July 29, 1983
The purpose of presentation of claims against decedents of
the estate in the probate court is to protect the estate of
deceased persons to enable the executor or administrator
will be able to examine each claim and determine whether
it is a proper one which should be allowed. Further, the
primary object of the provisions requiring presentation is
to apprise the administrator and the probate court of the
existence of the claim so that a proper and timely
arrangement may be made for its payment in full or by prorata portion in the due course of the administration.
Gutierrez vs. Baretto-Datu, G.R. No. L-17175, July 31,
1962
The word claims as used in statutes requiring the
presentation of claims against a decedents estate is
generally construed to mean debts or demands of a
pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against
the deceased in his lifetime and could have been reduced to
simple money judgments; and among these are those
founded upon contract.
Stronghold Insurance vs. Republic-Asahi, G.R. No. 147561,
June 22, 2006
Generally, death of either the creditor or the debtor does
not extinguish the obligation and only obligations that are
personal or are identified with the persons themselves are
extinguished by death. Section 5 of Rule 86 of the Rules of
Court expressly allows the prosecution of money claims
arising from a contract against the estate of a deceased
debtor as these claims are not actually extinguished.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Absolute
Management Corporation, G.R. No. 170498. January 9,
2013
A distinctive character of Metrobanks fourth-party
complaint is its contingent nature the claim depends on
the possibility that Metrobank would be adjudged liable to
AMC, a future event that may or may not happen. This
characteristic unmistakably marks the complaint as a
contingent one that must be included in the claims falling
under the terms of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
De Bautista v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-28298, November
25, 1983
The only instance wherein a creditor can file an action
against a distributee of the debtors asset is under Sec. 5,
Rule 88 of the Rules of Court. The contingent claims must
first have been established and allowed in the probate court
before the creditors can file an action directly, against the
distributes, such is not the situation in the case at bar.
Natcher vs. CA, G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001
Before any conclusion about the legal share due to a
compulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that the net
estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all
payable obligations and charges from the value of the
property owned by the deceased at the time of his death;
then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it,
form there, the legitime of the compulsory heir or heirs can