The Collector of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs then filed with the
JURISDICTION
PEOPLE VS. MARIANO
GR L-40527 JUNE 30, 1976
Facts:
Respondent Mariano was charged with Estafa before the CFI of Bulacan because of
misappropriating and converting for his own personal use, power cord and electric
cables being the person in authority to receive the same in behalf of mayor Nolasco of
SJDM, Bulacan. Mariano then filed with the court a motion to quash all information.
The respondent judge then granted the motion on the basis that the court indeed had
no jurisdiction over the case, citing that a military commission had already ruled on a
malversation case against Mayor Nolasco involving the same properties questioned at
bar. The respondent judge noted that case having been heard and decided by a
competent tribunal gives no jurisdiction to his court to pass anew judgment on the
same subject matter. The PEOPLE then appealed and
Issue:
Does the civil court & military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the
case of the estafa of goods amounting to not more than 6,000 Pesos.
The Ruling:
Supreme Court having citing the The Judicial act of 1948 sec. 44 states that the Court
of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the
penalty provided by the law is imprisonment for more than six months or a fine of over
200 pesos. Estafa, more than meets with requirements needed for the Court of First
Instance to acquire original jurisdiction.
Supreme Court further stated the fact that Estafa and Malversation are 2 different and
distinct offense and that the military commission has no authority over the charges
placed on Mariano, SC decided that lower court committed a grave error in saying that
they had no jurisdiction over the matter because Military commissions have no
authority over estafa cases and the court of first instance has original jurisdiction as so
implied by the Judicial Act of 1948.
Auyong Hian vs Court of Tax Appeals
The ICC approved the license of the petitioner to import tobacco, but the
approval was advised on the same day as the import control law expired.
600 hogheads then arrived at the port of manila but the customs doubting the
legality of the import refused to release the shipment of said Virginia leaf
tobacco.
Petitioner then filed an action mandamus and Judge Barcelona issued an
order to release the tobacco shipment to petitioner.
Supreme Court a petition for certiorari to annul the order of release.
[ Barcelona case decision: ruled that the Court of First Instance of Manila had no
jurisdiction to issue the (questioned) order releasing the tobacco shipment; and this
Court incidentally declared that the importation of the tobacco, notwithstanding the
alleged approval of the importation by the President of the Philippines, was illegal upon
the ground that the importation was made long after the expiration of the effectivity of
the Import Control Law, and that the importation contravened the government policy
as declared in Republic Acts Nos. 698 and 1194]
Collector of Customs instituted seizure proceedings against the 600 hogsheads
of tobacco, and issued a warrant of seizure and detention, rendered a decision
declaring the tobacco forfeited to the government, and ordering the sale thereof
at public auction.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the Commisioner of Customs but the Com
Cus affirmed the decisione of collector of customs
Petitioner the appealed to CTA, Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the petition
upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the
Supreme Court had already decided in the Barcelona and Area cases that the
importation in question was illegal.
From this resolution Auyong Hian appealed to the Supreme Court. But SC
remanded the case to CTA. And CTA found the appeal to be without merit and
dismissed the same, with costs against petitioner.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the SC
Issue: Whether or not CTA has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner?
Ruling:
It must be recalled that in the Barcelona and Arca cases, supra, this Court had
categorically held that the importation of the 600 hogsheads of Virginia leaf tobacco
was illegal. It was for this reason that the Court of Tax Appeals, in its resolution of
June 22, 1965, in CTA Case No. 1560 (First CTA Case), dismissed the appeal of Auyong
Hian from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs. But this Court, in the first CTA
Case held that the Court of Tax Appeals, had jurisdiction to pass upon the appeal of
Auyong Hian from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs because the appeal
involved matters related to the administrative proceedings in connection with the seizure,
forfeiture and sale of the tobacco in question. Here is what this Court said:
... It appears to Us that the Court of Tax Appeals had overlooked the
fact that the appeal of Auyong Hian from the decision of the
Commissioner of Customs had raised not only the question of the
legality of the importation but also other matters which called for a
ruling by the Court of Tax Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction especially the question of whether the tobacco thus
imported were goods the importation of which was relatively prohibited
or absolutely prohibited, and also the question regarding the disposal
 of the tobacco that was thus seized. The declaration by this Court, in location of the subject parcel of land is controlling pursuant to Sec. 2, par. (a),
the Barcelona and Arca cases, supra, that the importation of the Rule 4 of the New Rules of Court.
tobacco in question was illegal was not intended to stop the course of
the administrative proceedings in relation to the importation of said Issue: Whether or not the court upon motion can dismiss petitioner's complaint by
tobacco. Let it be noted that when the Barcelona case was decided on respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue?
July 31, 1962 the seizure proceedings against the 600 hogsheads of
tobacco in question had not yet been instituted by the Collector of Ruling:
Customs. It was not until November 8, 1962 when Seizure
Identification No. 6669 was instituted. ... No, It is plain error, and attributable to its inability to distinguish between jurisdiction
and venue. Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically governed by
And so this Court, in the First CTA case, declared the Court of Tax Appeals as Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is said that the laying of venue is procedural
possessed of jurisdiction to pass upon the questions raised by Auyong Hian in his rather than substantive. Jurisdiction treats of the power of the court to decide a case
appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs regarding administrative on the merits, while venue deals on the locality, the place where the suit may be had.
matters relating to the seizure proceedings of the 600 hogsheads of tobacco in
question. Rule 4, Section 2, of the Rules of Court requiring that an action involving real property
shall be brought in the Court of First Instance of the province where the land lies is a
rule on venue of actions, which may be waived expressly or by implication."
DACOYCOY VS IAC
Even granting for a moment that the action of petitioner is a real action, respondent
FACTS: trial court would still have jurisdiction over the case, it being a regional trial court
vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions which involve the
DACOYCOY, filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXI, Antipolo, title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein . . ." in accordance with
Rizal, a complaint against private respondent Rufino de Guzman praying for Section 19 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Respondent trial court could have acquired
the annulment of two (2) deeds of sale involving a parcel of riceland situated in jurisdiction over the defendant, now private respondent, either by his voluntary
Barrio Estanza, Lingayen, Pangasinan, the surrender of the produce thereof appearance in court and his submission to its authority, or by the coercive power of
and damages for private respondent's refusal to have said deeds of sale set legal process exercised over his person
aside upon petitioner's demand
RTC Executive Judge issued an order requiring counsel for petitioner to confer the venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose
with respondent trial judge on the matter of venue convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial court cannot pre-empt the
Trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of improper venue because defendant's prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio
petitioner's action is a real action as it sought not only the annulment of the dismissing the case.
aforestated deeds of sale but also the recovery of ownership of the subject
parcel of riceland located in Estanza, Lingayen, Pangasinan, which is outside
Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to have taken a procedural short-cut
the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
by dismissing motu proprio the complaint on the ground of improper venue without
Petitioner appealed to CA but affirmed the decision of the order of dismissal
first allowing the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court to take its proper course.
Petitioner filed a petition for review stating that the appellate court erroneously
affirmed the decision of the rtc because the defendant has not answered the
complaint or waived the venue.
Petitioner claims that the right to question the venue of an action belongs
solely to the defendant and that the court or its magistrate does not possess
the authority to confront the plaintiff and tell him that the venue was
improperly laid, as venue is waivable.
The private respondent alleged that the dismissal of the complaint is correct
because the court can take judicial notice and motu proprio dismiss a suit
clearly denominated as real action and improperly filed before it. . . . the