PHIL. VETERANS BANK V. CA G.R. No.

132767
18 Jan. 2000
Facts: Four parcels of land owned by Philippine
Veterans Bank was taken by DAR pursuant to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Petitioner
contended that DAR adjudicators have no
jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for
the taking of lands under CARP because such
jurisdiction is vested in the RTC.
Issue: Whether the DAR or RTC has jurisdiction
Held: DAR has jurisdiction. There is nothing
contradictory
between
the
DARs
primary
jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters and
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform,
which includes the determination of questions of
just compensation, and the RTCs original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to the
landowner. In accordance with settled principles of
administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in
the DAR as an administrative agency to determine
in
a
preliminary
manner
the
reasonable
compensation to be paid for the lands taken under
CARP, but such determination is subject to
challenge in the courts.
DUCAT V. CA G.R. No. 119652
20 Jan. 2000

Facts: Petitioner Ventura O. Ducat lost in a civil

case. There was already execution of judgment.
The trial court denied his Motion to Annul the
Execution Sale, Motion to Reconsider, and Motion
to Hold in Abeyance the Implementation of the
Writ of Possession. Instead of filing a petition for
certiorari, petitioner presented before the trial
court a Manifestation and Motion to Set Parameters
of Computation. The trial then issued an Alias Writ
of Possession against Ducat which he questioned.
Issue: Whether Petitioner can validly question the
courts authority to issue the writ
Held: No. It is too late for Ducat to question the
subject order of the court. He could have taken
recourse to the CA but he did not. Instead, he
manifested acquiescence to the said order by
seeking parameters before the trial court. If the
parties acquiesced in submitting an issue for
determination by the trial court, they are estopped
from questioning the jurisdiction of the same court
to pas upon the issue.
LLORENTE V.
122297-98
19 Jan. 2000

SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R.

Nos.

Facts: CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE, JR., municipal

mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, was
charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation
of RA 3019. Pending the case, Congress enacted
RA 7975, limiting the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. A then contended that by virtue of

RA 7975, the Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction over

his case.
Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan was divested
of jurisdiction
Held: No. To determine whether the official is
within
the
exclusive
jurisdiction
of
the
Sandiganbayan, reference should be made to RA
6758 and the Index of Occupational Services,
position Titles, and Salary Grades. A municipal
mayor is classified under Salary Grade 27. Thus,
the case against A is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
MARQUEZ V. COMELEC [G.R. No. 127318
25 Aug. 1999
Facts: Francis King L. Marquez won in the SK
elections. An election protest was filed before the
Metropolitan Trial Court, impugning the election of
petitioner on the ground that the latter is
disqualified by age to the office of SK Chairman.
Marquez aassailed the jurisdiction of the MTC over
the case.
Issue: Whether the MTC has jurisdiction
Held: Yes. Any contest relating to the election of
SK members (including the Chairman) whether
pertaining to their eligibility or the manner of their
election is cognizable by the MTCs, MCTCs and
MeTCs. Before proclamation, cases concerning
eligibility of SK officers and members are

cognizable by the Election Officer as provided in

Sec. 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824. After
election and proclamation, the same cases become
quo warranto cases cognizable by MTCs, MCTCs
and MeTCs.
SAURA V. SAURA G.R. No. 136159.
1 Sept. 1999
Facts: The parties in this case are related to one
another by blood. Petitoners Macrina Saura Et al
filed a case against Ramon G. Saura, Jr. and
Carmencita S. Millan, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Petitioners also also filed a
civil case for the annulment of a sale against
respondents before the RTC. Respondents filed a
motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction of
the trial court.
Issue: Whether
jurisdiction

the

SEC

or

the

RTC

has

Held: The RTC has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over

the subject matter is conferred by law and is
determined by the allegations of the complaint.
Jurisdiction of the SEC is determined by a
concurrence of 2 elements: (1) the status or
relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of
the question that is the subject of the controversy.
IN this case, the complaint for annulment of the
sale is an ordinary civil action, which is beyond the
limited jurisdiction of the SEC.