G.R. No.

165025, August 31, 2011

FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. FEDERICO

AGCAOILI, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

Fedman Development Corporation was the owner and developer of a condominium project
known as Fedman Suites Building (FSB) located on Salcedo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati
City. Interchem Laboratories Incorporated (Interchem) purchased FSB's Unit 411 under a
contract to sell. FDC executed a Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions, and formed the
Fedman Suite Condominium Corporation (FSCC) to manage FSB and hold title over its common
areas. Interchem, with FDC's consent, transferred all its rights in Unit 411 to respondent Federico
Agcaoili (Agcaoili), a practicing attorney who was then also a member of the Provincial Board
of Quezon Province. Due to break down of the centralized air-conditioning unit of FSBs 4th
floor, Agcaoili being affected wrote a demand letter for the repair of the air-conditioning unit to
the board of FSCC. However, the request was unheeded despite of follow up and this resulted to
suspension of payment of his condominium dues and monthly amortizations. Agcaoili was thus
prompted to sue FDC and FSCC in the RTC, Makati City, Branch 144 for injunction and
damages.

ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A FAILURE TO PAY THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF
DOCKET FEE IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SPECIFY
THE AMOUNT OF MORAL DAMAGES, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEYS FEES.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PAYMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED DOCKET FEE BY

RESPONDENT AGCAOILI WAS NECESSARY FOR THE RTC TO ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.

RULING:

The petition is bereft of merit. The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and
the payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over
the claim. In an action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of money and damages, the
docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount being claimed. The prevailing rule
is that if the correct amount of docket fees are not paid at the time of filing, the trial court still
acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may
grant, barring prescription. The "prescriptive period" that bars the payment of the docket fees
refers to the period in which a specific action must be filed, so that in every case the docket fees
must be paid before the lapse of the prescriptive period, as provided in the applicable laws,
particularly Chapter 3, Title V, Book III, of the Civil Code, the principal law on prescription of
actions.
G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015

RUBEN MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG, CONCEPCION GONZALES AND LUIS

MANALANG, PETITIONERS, VS. BIENVENIDO AND MERCEDES BACANI,
RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:

Petitioners Ruben Manalang, Amado Manalang, Carlos Manalang, Concepcion M. Gonzales,

Ladislao Manalang and Luis Manalang were the co-owners of Lot No 4236 with an area of 914
square meters of the Guagua Cadastre, and declared for taxation purposes in the name of Tomasa
B. Garcia. The land was covered by approved survey plan Ap-03-004154. Adjacent to Lot 4236
was the respondents Lot No. 4235 covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. N-
216701. In 1997, the petitioners caused the relocation and verification survey of Lot 4236 and
the adjoining lots, and the result showed that the respondents had encroached on Lot No. 4236 to
the extent of 405 square meters. A preliminary relocation survey conducted by the Lands
Management Section of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
confirmed the result on the encroachment. When the respondents refused to vacate the
encroached portion and to surrender peaceful possession thereof despite demands, the petitioners
commenced this action for unlawful detainer on April 21, 1997 in the MTC of Guagua and the
case was assigned to Branch 2 of that court. On appeal, however, the RTC reversed the MTC
(Branch 2), and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because there was an
apparent withholding of possession of the property and the action was brought within one year
from such withholding of possession the proper action was ejectment which was within the
jurisdiction of the MTC; and that the case was not a boundary dispute that could be resolved in
an accion reinvidicatoria, considering that it involved a sizeable area of property and not a mere
transferring of boundary.

ISSUES:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC HAD AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL

EVIDENCE ON APPEAL IN AN EJECTMENT CASE.

2. WHETHER OR NOT CIVIL CASE NO. 3309 WAS AN EJECTMENT CASE WITHIN
THE ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE MTC.

RULING:

The appeal has no merit. The RTC shall not conduct a rehearing or trial de novo on appeal of the
judgment in an ejectment case. Pursuant to this, the judgment or final order shall be appealable to
the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record
of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court. The RTC clearly violated the
rule by ordering the conduct of the relocation and verification survey in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and by hearing the testimony of the survey, for doing was tantamount to its holding
of a trial de novo. On the second issue, the case should be dismissed without prejudice to the
filing of a non-summary action like accion reivindicatoria. The boundary dispute is not about
possession, but encroachment, that is, whether the property claimed by the defendant formed part
of the plaintiffs property. A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry.
G.R. No. 180497, October 05, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATRICIO

TAGUIBUYA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS:

The accused was charged with two counts of rape and a violation of Republic Act No. 7610,
committed against his own daughter, AAA, then a minor. The accused allegedly forced AAA to
have sexual intercourse when she was cleaning the rice fields; she was then alleged to be a 15
year old minor and his own daughter. In the second instance of rape (Criminal Case No. 2546),
which took place on March 15, 2000 and in the month of May 1998 up to and including March
2000, he allegedly raped AAA, a 16 year old minor and his own daughter. As to the charge of
child abuse (Criminal Case No. 2386), committed about the month of May 1998 up to and
including March 2000, he allegedly touched, caressed and forcibly inserted his penis into the
private parts (vagina) of AAA, a 17 year old minor, which acts constitute(d) the Violation of
Republic Act No. 7610). The accused, pleading not guilty at his arraignment, denied the
charges, claiming that AAA had fabricated them. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) accorded
credence to the testimony of AAA and found the accused guilty of two counts of qualified rape
due to AAA being a minor at the time of the commission of the rapes and because he had
admitted being her father. The RTC acquitted him of the violation of Republic Act No. 7610 on
the ground that the information did not allege that AAA had been a child below eighteen years
of age but over twelve years.

ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED MAY ASSAIL THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF
RTC FOR HIS CONVICTION OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

RULING:

The Supreme Court cannot contradict the factual findings, especially because the CA, as the
reviewing tribunal, affirmed them. Such findings are now entitled to great weight and respect, if
not conclusiveness, for we accept that the trial court was in the best position as the original trier
of the facts in whose direct presence and under whose keen observation the witnesses rendered
their respective versions of the events that made up the occurrences constituting the ingredients
of the offenses charged. The direct appreciation of testimonial demeanor during examination,
veracity, sincerity and candor was foremost the trial court's domain, not that of a reviewing court
that had no similar access to the witnesses at the time they testified. Without the accused
persuasively demonstrating that the RTC and the CA overlooked a material fact that otherwise
would change the outcome, or misappreciated a circumstance of consequence in their assessment
of the credibility of the witnesses and of their respective versions, the Court has no ground by
which to reverse their uniform findings as to the facts. Conviction or acquittal in a prosecution
for rape has often depended more often than not almost entirely on the credibility of the victim's
testimony, for, by the very nature of the crime, the victim is usually the only one who can testify
on its occurrence. At any rate, the Supreme Court also reminds that in this jurisdiction the worth
of witnesses has been based on their quality, not on their quantity. Accordingly, the RTC
correctly considered AAA to be forthright and consistent in her recollection of the details of her
ordeals at the hands of her own father.
G.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010

CATALINA BALAIS-MABANAG, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ELEUTERIO

MABANAG, PETITIONER, VS. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON
CITY, CONCEPCION D. ALCARAZ, AND RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARAZ,
RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:

Romulo A. Coronel, Alarico A. Coronel, Annette A. Coronel, Annabelle C. Gonzales, Floraida

C. Tupper, and Cielito A. Coronel (Coronels) executed a document entitled receipt of down
payment, stipulating that they received from respondent Ramona Patricia Alcaraz (Ramona),
through Ramona's mother, respondent Concepcion D. Alcaraz (Concepcion), the sum of
P50,000.00 as downpayment on the total purchase price of P1,240,000.00 for their "inherited
house and lot, covered by TCT No. 119627 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City." The
property originally registered in the name of the Coronels' father (Constancio P. Coronel) was
transferred in the name of the Coronels under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 327043 of
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. the Coronels sold the property covered by TCT No.
327043 to the petitioner for the higher price of P1,580,000.00 after the latter delivered an initial
sum of P300,000.00. For this reason, the Coronels rescinded their contract with Ramona by
depositing her downpayment of P50,000.00 in the bank in trust for Ramona Patricia Alcaraz.
On February 22, 1985, Concepcion, through one Gloria P. Noel as her attorney-in-fact, filed a
complaint for specific performance and damages in her own name in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Quezon City against the Coronels, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-44134. RTC rendered
judgment for specific performance of defendant to execute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of
absolute sale covering that parcel of land embraced in and covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 327403 (now TCT No. 331582) of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City. The
petitioner interposed an appeal to the CA. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUES:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER TO RAISE THE

QUALIFICATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT TO OWN LAND IN THE
PHILIPPINES DURING TRIAL IS DEEMED WAIVED.

RULING:

The petitioner's move was outrightly unwarranted. Pursuant to Rules of Court, defenses
and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. The petitioner
cannot now insist that the RTC did not settle the question of the respondents'
qualifications to own land due to non-citizenship. It is fundamental that the judgment or
final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that
could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their
successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same
capacity.x`