Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 23

5.

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction


A. OMICTIN VS. CA

B. REPUBLIC VS. LACAP

6. Doctrine of adherence of
jurisdiction/continuing jurisdiction
ABAD, ET AL. VS. RTC OF MANILA

II. Jurisdiction
A. Over the parties
2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is
acquired
A. OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION
VS. HERTZ PHIL, EXCLUSIVE. INC.
B. AFDAL & AFDAL VS. CARLOS
Facts:
Respondent Romeo Carlos filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer and damages against
petitioners Zenaida Guijabar, et al.
Respondent alleged that petitioners were
occupying, by mere tolerance. Respondent
claimed that petitioner Abubakar Afdal sold
the property to him but that he allowed
petitioners to stay in the property.
Respondent claimed that he demanded return
of the property because he needed its use but summons to petitioners. An action for
that they refused to heed the demand. unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real
action and in personam. In an action in
According to the records, there were three
personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
attempts to serve the summons and complaint
defendant is necessary for the court to validly
on petitioners which were returned with the
try and decide the case. Any judgment of the
following annotations:
court which has no jurisdiction over the
1.) Unsatisfied/given address cannot person of the defendant is null and void.
be located.
Service of summons upon the defendant shall
2.) Duly served as evidenced by his be by personal service first and only when the
signature of one Gary Acob defendant cannot be promptly served in
(relative) person will substituted service be availed of.
In this case, the indorsements failed to state
3.) Duly served but refused to sign” that prompt and personal service on
without specifying to whom it petitioners was rendered impossible. These
was served. requirements are indispensable because
Petitioner failed to file an answer. The MTC substituted service is in derogation of the
ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner filed usual method of service.
a motion for relief in the MTC which they Likewise, nowhere in the return of summons
withdrew. They filed the same motion in the or in the records of the case was it shown that
RTC. Gary Acob, the person on whom substituted
The RTC dismissed the petition holding that service of summons was effected, was a
it didn’t have jurisdiction. person of suitable age and discretion residing
in petitioners’ residence. the process server
Issue: Whether or not the RTC had failed to specify Gary Acob’s age, his
jurisdiction over the petition for relief from relationship to petitioners and to ascertain
judgement. No jurisdiction. whether he comprehends the significance of
Ruling: the receipt of the summons and his duty to
deliver it to petitioners or at least notify them
In the present case, petitioners cannot file the of said receipt of summons.
petition for relief with the MTC because it is
a prohibited pleading in an unlawful detainer In sum, petitioners were not validly served
case. Petitioners cannot also file the petition with summons by substituted service. Hence,
for relief with the RTC because the RTC has the MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over
no jurisdiction to entertain petitions for relief the person of the petitioners and, thus, the
from judgments of the MTC. Therefore, the MTC’s decision is void
RTC did not err in dismissing the petition for
relief from judgment of the MTC.
B. Over the subject matter
The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 on the ground of lack of 1. How jurisdiction is conferred and
jurisdiction of the MTC over the person of determined
petitioners in view of the absence of
A. FE V. RAPSING, ET AL VS. HON. Petitioners then sought reconsideration of the
JUDGE MAXIMINO R. ABLES order, but was denied by the RTC. Hence,
this present petition.
Facts:
Issue:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition
seeking to set aside the orders of the RTC of Whether Judge Ables abused his discretion
Masbate. amounting to excess of jurisdiction in
granting the transfer.
Respondents are members of the Alpha
Company, 22nd infantry Battalion of the Held:
Philippine Army in Masbate. Petitioners are
Petition is meritorious. RTC abused its
widows of Rapsing, Villanueva and
discretion in not taking cognizance of the
Aparejado, who were allegedly killed by the
case, which actually falls within its
respondents.
jurisdiction.
Respondents alleged that on May 3, 2004,
It is rule of the procedural law that
they received information about the presence
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
of NPA partisans in Masbate. Acting on the
case is conferred by law and is determined by
information, they coordinated with the PNP
the allegations of the complaint. what
and proceeded to the place. There, they
determines the jurisdiction of the court is the
encountered armed elements which resulted
nature of the action pleaded as appearing in
to an intense fire fight. After which, seven
the complaint.
persons were named dead including the
husbands of the petitioners. In this case, murder is a crime within the
jurisdiction of the RTC. The military
Petitioners claimed that there was no
tribunals cannot exercise jurisdiction over
encounter ensued. Hence, they requested the
this case because the offense charged is not
NBI to conduct investigation. NBI, relying
included in the enumeration of the "service-
on the statements of the witnesses who claim
connected offenses or crimes".
that the military massacred helpless and
unarmed civilians recommended to the B. MENDOZA VS. GERMINO &
prosecutor of Masbate to conduct a GERMINO (lawyerly meron)
preliminary investigation against the
respondents for the crime of multiple murder. C. REMEDIOS ANTONIO VS. THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI
Then, before the warrant of arrest of CITY, ET AL.
respondents was issued by the RTC Masbate,
Judge advocate general's office of the AFP FACTS:
filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the case Since March 21, 1978, petitioner Remedios
against respondents be transferred to the Antonino had been leasing a residential
jurisdiction of the military tribunal, it was property located at Makati City and owned by
granted. private respondent Tan Tian Su (Su). Under
the governing lease contract, Antonino was
accorded with the right of Frst refusal in the
event Su would decide to sell the subject
property. On July 7, 2004, the parties "jurisdiction" is different from the exercise
executed a document denominated as thereof.
Undertaking Agreement [4] where Su agreed
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of
to sell to Antonino the subject property forP
jurisdiction. As distinguished from the
39,500,000.00. However, in view of a
exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the
disagreement as to who between them would
authority to decide a cause, and not the
shoulder the payment of the capital gains tax,
decision rendered therein. Where there is
the sale did not proceed as intended. On July
jurisdiction over the person and the subject
9, 2004, Antonino Fled a complaint against
matter, the decision on all other questions
Su with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
arising in the case is but an exercise of the
Makati City, for the reimbursement of the
jurisdiction. And the errors, which the court
cost of repairs on the subject property and
may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction,
payment of damages. The complaint was
are merely errors of judgment, which are the
ra±ed to Branch 149 and docketed as Civil
proper subject of an appeal.
Case No. 04-802. Later that same day,
Antonino Fled an amended complaint to
enforce the Undertaking Agreement and
compel Su to sell to her the subject property. 2. Objections to jurisdiction over the
In an Order dated December 8, 2004, the subject matter
RTC dismissed Antonino’s complaint on the LASMIS VS. DONG-E
grounds of improper venue and non-payment
of the appropriate docket fees. According to FACTS:
the RTC, Antonino’s complaint is one for This case involves a conflict of ownership
speciFc performance, damages and sum of and possession over an untitled parcel of
money, which are personal actions that land.
should have been Fled in the court of the
place where any of the parties resides. Petitioners are the actual occupants of the
Antonino and Su reside in Muntinlupa and subject land and respondent is claiming
Manila, respectively, thus Makati City is not ownership thereof and is seeking to recover
the proper venue. its possession from petitioners.

ISSUE: WON the lack of jurisdiction over According to respondent, her family’s
the case is a ground for annulment? ownership and occupation of the land can be
traced as far back as 1922 to her late
HELD: YES. Lack of jurisdiction over the grandfather, Ap-ap.
subject matter a ground for annulment of
judgment. As this Court previously clarified Upon Ap-ap’s death, the property was
in Republic of the Philippines v. "G" inherited by his children, who obtained a
Holdings, Inc., "lack of jurisdiction" as a survey plan and declared the property for tax
ground for the annulment of judgments purposes in the name of “Teirs of Ap-ap.”
pertains to lack of jurisdiction over the person The heirs of Ap-ap then executed a deed of
of the defending party or over the subject quitclaim in favor of respondent’s father.
matter of the claim. It does not contemplate That the heirs of Gilbert Semon tolerated the
"grave abuse of discretion" considering that acts of their first cousins, petitioner’s in-
laws, to stay on a Lot No. 1 together with HELD:
their respective families.
(1)Asda
When Gilbert Semon died, his children
(2)Asda
extrajudicially partitioned the property
among themselves and allotted Lot No. (3)No.
1 in favor of Margarita.
(4)Yes.
When the petitioner began expanding their
occupation on the subject property and As a general rule, an objection over subject-
selling portions thereof, Margarita filed a matter may be raised any time of the
complaint for recovery of ownership, proceedings. This is because jurisdiction
possession, reconveyance, and damages. cannot be waived by the parties or vested by
the agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is
RTC: preponderates in favor of respondents vested by law, which prevailed at the time of
long-time possession of and claim of the filing of the complaint.
ownership over the subject property.
The survey plan, tax declarations, and the However, an exception to this rule has been
documentary evidence of the transfer of the carved by jurisprudence. In Tajim v.
land from the heirs of ap-ap to respondent Sibonghanoy, the court ruled that the
father were given credence. existence of laches will prevent a party from
raising the courts lack of jurisdiction. Laches
CA: Ruled that the respondent was able to is defined as the failure or neglect, for an
discharge her burden in proving unreasonable and unexplained length of time,
to do that which, by exercising due diligence,
her title and interest to the subject property.
could or should have been done earlier; it is
ISSUE: negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonable time, warranting the
(1) WON appellate court disregarded
presumption that the party entitled to assert it
material facts and circumstances in
either has abandoned or declined it.
affirming the trial courts decision
In the case at bar, the application of the Tijam
(2) WON petitioner have acquired the subject doctrine is called for because of the presence
property by prescription of laches cannot be ignored.

(3) WON the ancestral land claim pending At the time the complaint was file in 1998,
before the National Commission the IPRA was already in effect but the
petitioners never raised the same as a ground
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should for dismissal; instead they filed a motion to
take precedence over the reivindicatory dismiss on the ground that the value of the
action. property did not meet the jurisdictional value
(4) WON the trial court has jurisdiction to for the RTC. They obviously neglected to
decide the case in light of the effectivity of take the IPRA into consideration.
RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights It is only before the SC, 8 years after the
Act (IPRA) of 1997 at the time that the filing of the complaint, after the trial court
complaint was instituted.
had already conducted a full-blown trial and Issue:
rendered a decision on the merits, after the
Whether or not the complaint filed was for an
appellate court had made a thorough review
unlawful detainer making the RTC want
of the records, and after petitioner have twice
jurisdiction over the case.
encountered adverse decision from the trial
and the appellate courts that petitioner now Held:
want to expunge all the efforts that have gone
into the litigation and resolution of their case A detainer suit exclusively involves the issue
and start of over again. of physical possession. The case filed by De
Leon was not an unlawful detainer since it
involved more than the issue of
possession. De Leon prayed that Inayan be
3. Effect of estoppel on objections to
ordered to vacate the premises, pay back
jurisdiction
rentals, unpaid irrigation fees, moral and
A. DE LEON VS. CA exemplary damages and litigation fees.
Facts: Where the issues of the case extend beyond
those commonly involved in unlawful
Balbuena, owner of a parcel of land, entered
detainer suits, such as for instance, the
into a lease agreement with Inayan in 1970,
respective rights of parties under various
who bound himself to deliver 252 cavans of
contractual arrangements and the validity
palay each year as rental. The ownership of
thereof, the case is converted from a mere
the land was then transferred to Balbuena's
detainer suit to one "incapable of pecuniary
daughter, De Leon.
estimation," thereby placing it under the
In 1983, Inayan stopped paying the agreed exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
rental. In 1984, Balbuena filed a complaint
for "Termination of Civil Law Lease;
Recovery of Posession; Recovery of Unpaid B. TIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY
Rentals and Damages" with the RTC against
FACTS:
Inayan.
The action at bar, which is a suit for
The RTC ruled in favor of De Leon. On
collection of a sum of money in the sum of
appeal to the CA, Inayan questioned the
exactly P 1,908.00, exclusive of interest filed
jurisdiction of the RTC. The CA, in Inayan's
by Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog
motion for reconsideration, dismissed the
against Spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy
civil case filed by De Leon for want of
and Lucia Baguio, was originally instituted in
jurisdiction. It ruled that De Leon's
the Court of First Instance of Cebu on July
complaint was based on accion interdictal, a
19, 1948. A month prior to the filing of the
summary action for recovery of possession
complaint, the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A.
that should have been brought before the
296) took effect depriving the Court of First
MTC. It found that the 1-year period had not
Instance of original jurisdiction over cases in
yet elapsed from the time when the civil case
which the demand, exclusive of interest, is
for the recovery of possession was filed.
not more than P 2,000.00 (Secs. 44[c] and
86[b], R.A. 296.)
The case has already been pending now for of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a
almost 15 years, and throughout the entire right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
proceeding the appellant never raised the
It has been held that a party can not invoke
question of jurisdiction until the receipt of the
the jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative
Court of Appeals' adverse decision.
relief against his opponent and, after
Considering that the Supreme Court has the obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases repudiate or question that same jurisdiction
in which jurisdiction of any inferior court is (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86 A.L.R. 79).
in issue, the Court of Appeals certified the In the case just cited, by way of explaining
case to the Supreme Court along with the the rule, it was further said that the question
records of the case. whether the court had jurisdiction either of
the subject-matter of the action or of the
ISSUE: parties was not important in such cases
because the party is barred from such conduct
Whether or not the appellant's motion to not because the judgment or order of the court
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but
of the Court of First Instance during the for the reason that such a practice can not be
pendency of the appeal will prosper. tolerated — obviously for reasons of public
policy.
RULING:
Furthermore, it has also been held that after
A party may be estopped or barred from voluntarily submitting a cause and
raising a question in different ways and for encountering an adverse decision on the
different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel merits, it is too late for the loser to question
in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and the jurisdiction or power of the court (Pease
of estoppel by laches. vs. Rathbun-Jones etc., 243 U.S. 273, 61 L.
Ed. 715, 37 S. Ct. 283; St. Louis etc. vs.
Laches, in a general sense is failure or
McBride, 141 U.S. 127, 35 L. Ed. 659). And
neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained
in Littleton vs. Burgess, 16 Wyo. 58, the
length of time, to do that which, by exercising
Court said that it is not right for a party who
due diligence, could or should have been
has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a
done earlier; it is negligence or omission to
court in a particular matter to secure an
assert a right within a reasonable time,
affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that
warranting a presumption that the party
same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it. Upon this same principle is what We said in
the three cases mentioned in the resolution of
The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands"
the Court of Appeals of May 20, 1963 (supra)
is based upon grounds of public policy which
— to the effect that we frown upon the
requires, for the peace of society, the
"undesirable practice" of a party submitting
discouragement of stale claims and, unlike
his case for decision and then accepting the
the statute of limitations, is not a mere
judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it
question of time but is principally a question
for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse — as
well as in Pindañgan etc. vs. Dans, et al., G.R. UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the orders
L-14591, September 26, 1962; Montelibano, appealed from are hereby affirmed, with
et al., vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., costs against the appellant Manila Surety and
G.R. L-15092; Young Men Labor Union etc. Fidelity Company, Inc.
vs. The Court of Industrial Relation et al.,
G.R. L-20307, Feb. 26, 1965, and Mejia vs.
Lucas, 100 Phil. p. 277. C. ATTY. CUDIAMAT, ET AL. VS.
BATANGAS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK
The facts of this case show that from the time
the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, Atty. Restituto Cudamiat and his brother
1948, it could have raised the question of the Perfecto were the registered co-owners of a
lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First 320 square meter parcel of land in Balayan,
Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the Batangas. Perfecto, without Restituto’s
present action by reason of the sum of money knowledge and consent, obtained a loan from
involved which, according to the law then in Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (the
force, was within the original exclusive bank) for which the subject parcel of land was
jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do mortgaged. Eventually the property was
so. Instead, at several stages of the foreclosed and Cudiamat et al. filed before
proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan a
the Court of Appeals, it invoked the complaint for quieting of title with damages
jurisdiction of said courts to obtain against the bank, assailing the mortgage as
affirmative relief and submitted its case for a being null and void as they did not authorize
final adjudication on the merits. It was only the encumbrance of the property. The bank,
after an adverse decision was rendered by the in its answer, alleges, among others, that the
Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to Balayan RTC had no jurisdiction over the
raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to case as the bank had been placed under
sanction such conduct on its part, We would receivership and under liquidation by the
in effect be declaring as useless all the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
proceedings had in the present case since it (PDIC), thus, jurisdiction to adjudicate
was commenced on July 19, 1948 and disputed claims against it is lodged with the
compel the judgment creditors to go up their liquidation court-RTC Nasugbu. The
Calvary once more. The inequity and Balayan RTC rendered judgment in favour of
unfairness of this is not only patent but Cudiamat et al. The bank appealed to the
revolting. Court of Appeals (CA) contending that the
Balayan RTC had no jurisdiction over
Coming now to the merits of the appeal: after
Cudiamat et al.’s complaint for quieting of
going over the entire record, We have
title.
become persuaded that We can do nothing
better than to quote in toto, with approval, the ISSUE: May the bank be allowed to raise the
decision rendered by the Court of Appeals x question of lack of jurisdiction after actively
x x granting plaintiffs' motion for execution participating in the proceedings in the
against the surety x x x Balayan RTC
HELD: Estoppel bars the bank from raising before the appellate court rendered the
the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Balayan assailed decision) would be an exercise in
RTC. In Lozon v. NLRC, the Court came up futility and would unjustly burden petitioners
with a clear rule on when jurisdiction by
4. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished
estoppel applies and when it does not: “The
from error of judgement
operation of estoppel on the question of
jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether FIRST CORPORATION VS. FORMER
the lower court actually had jurisdiction or SIXTH DIVISION OF CA
not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was
tried and decided upon the theory that it had
jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on C. Over the issues
appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for
the same “must exist as a matter of law, and DE JOYA VS. MARQUEZ
may not be conferred by the consent of the  Manuel Dy filed a criminal case
parties or by estoppel.” However, if the lower against Hao and Tan for syndicated
court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard estafa.
and decided upon a given theory, such, for
instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction,  Dy complained that he was enticed to
the party who induced it to adopt such theory invest in a large sum of money in
will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an State Resource Development
inconsistent position—that the lower court Management Corporation wherein he
had jurisdiction…” (underscoring supplied) issued several checks amounting to
The ruling was echoed in Metromedia Times almost P114M and in turn the
Corporation v. Pastorin. In the present case, corporation issued several checks to
the Balayan RTC, sitting as a court of general Dy which were dishonored due to
jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over the insufficient funds.
complaint for quieting of title filed by
 A resolution was issued by Prosecutor
petitioners on August 9, 1999. The Nasugbu
Nicdao finding probable cause to
RTC, as a liquidation court, assumed
indict petitioner and his other co-
jurisdiction over the claims against the bank
accused for syndicated estafa and a
only on May 25, 2000, when PDIC’s petition
copy of the articles of incorporation
for assistance in the liquidation was raffled
of the aforementioned corporation
thereat and given due course. While it is well-
named petitioner as incorporator and
settled that lack of jurisdiction on the subject
director to which they had knowledge
matter can be raised at any time and is not lost
of its activities and transactions.
by estoppel by laches, the present case is an
exception. To compel petitioners to re- file  The Court finds that these documents
and relitigate their claims before the Nasugbu sufficiently establish the existence of
RTC when the parties had already been given probable cause.
the opportunity to present their respective
evidence in a full- blown trial before the Probable cause - facts and circumstances
Balayan RTC which had, in fact, decided which would lead a reasonably discreet and
petitioners’ complaint (about two years prudent person to believe that an offense has
been committed by the person sought to be pleading before the court by the
arrested plaintiff or petitioner.
 Petitioner then filed for certiorari and b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or
prohibition to nullify the warrant of respondent:
arrest issued by Judge Marquez for
 This is acquired by the voluntary
estafa. Petitioner asserts that
appearance or submission by the
respondent judge erred in finding
defendant or respondent to the
probable cause justifying the issuance
court or by coercive process issued
of the warrant against him and his co-
by the court to him, generally by
accused.
the service of summons.
ISSUE: May De Joya seek relief from
c. Jurisdiction over the subject matter:
Court/trial even though he continuously
refuses to surrender and submit to the Court’s  This is conferred by law and, unlike
jurisdiction? NO jurisdiction over the parties, cannot
be conferred on the court by the
HELD:
voluntary act or agreement of the
 A person is not entitled to seek relief parties.
from the Supreme Court nor from the
d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case:
trial court where he continuously
refuses to surrender and submit to the  This is determined and conferred by
court’s jurisdiction. the pleadings filed in the case by the
parties, or by their agreement in a pre-
 His continued refusal to submit to the
trial order or stipulation, or, at times
court’s jurisdiction should give this
by their implied consent as by the
Court more reason to uphold the
failure of a party to object to evidence
action of the respondent judge.
on an issue not covered by the
 The purpose of a warrant of arrest is pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule
to place the accused under the 10.
custody of the law to hold him for trial
e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or
of the charges against him.
thing which is the subject of the litigation)
 It should be remembered that he who
 This is acquired by the actual or
invokes the court’s jurisdiction must
constructive seizure by the court of
first submit to its jurisdiction.
the thing in question, thus placing it
Note: in custodia legis, as in attachment or
garnishment; or by provision of law
Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and which recognizes in the court the
how the court acquires such jurisdiction:
power to deal with the property or
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: subject matter within its territorial
jurisdiction, as in land registration
 This is acquired by the filing of the proceedings or suits involving civil
complaint, petition or initiatory status or real property in the
Philippines of a non-resident anti-graft court found that the totality of
defendant assets and properties acquired by the Marcos
spouses was manifestly and grossly
disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as
D. Over the Res or property in litigation public officials, and that petitioners were
unable to overturn the prima facie
FERDINAND MARCOS JR., VS. presumption of ill-gotten wealth, pursuant to
REPUBLIC Section 2 of Republic Act No. (RA) 1379.
FACTS: In June 2012, the New York Court of
in 1972, Ferdinand Marcos formed the Appeals upheld the New York State
Arelma S.A. entity under the laws of Panama Appellate Court decision a year earlier which
and, opened an account under its name at the held that the case of Swezey (representing the
brokerage firm of Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, class of human rights victims) v. Merrill
Fenner & Smith, Inc. in New York and Lynch, et al, cannot proceed without the
deposited $2 million. A class action by the participation of the Republic of Philippines,
Marcos' human rights victims resulted in a making reference to the Philippines' Supreme
nearly $2 billion judgment for the "Pimentel Court ruling that the Arelma assets belonged
class," which claimed a right to enforce its to the People of the Philippines and should be
judgment by attaching the Arelma assets. The returned to them.
ownership in Arelma was represented by two ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan does not
bearer share certificates that are held in possess territorial jurisdiction over the res or
escrow by the Philippine National Bank the Arelma proceeds
(PNB), after being transferred there in 1990
by an order of the Swiss Federal Supreme RULING:
Court.
We find that the Sandiganbayan did not err in
The Republic of thePhilippines claimed granting the Motion for Partial Summary
ownership of the Arelma deposit of Judgment, despite the fact that the Arelma
approximately $35 million based on its account and proceeds are held abroad. To rule
custody of the Arelma shares, but citing otherwise contravenes the intent of the
claims to the funds by the Marcos' human forfeiture law, and indirectly privileges
rights victims, Merrill Lynch filed an violators who are able to hide public assets
interpleader motion to request the courts to abroad: beyond the reach of the courts and
settle ownership of the funds. Litigation is their recovery by the State. Forfeiture
ongoing in the United States, as of early proceedings, as we have already discussed
March 2011. exhaustively in our Decision, are actions
considered to be in the nature of proceedings
On 25 April 2012, this Court rendered a in rem or quasi in rem, such that:
Decision affirming the 2 April 2009 Decision
of the Sandiganbayan and declaring all the Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a)
assets of Arelma, S.A., an entity created by by the seizure of the property under legal
the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, forfeited in process, whereby it is brought into actual
favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the
institution of legal proceedings, in which the The Republic's declaration of sovereign
power of the court is recognized and made immunity in this case is entitled to
effective. In the latter condition, the property, recognition because it has a significant
though at all times within the potential power interest in allowing its courts to adjudicate
of the court, may not be in the actual custody the dispute over property that may have been
of said court. stolen from its public treasury and transferred
to New York through no fault of the
(The Republic's) national interests would be
Republic. The high courts of the United
severely prejudiced by a turnover proceeding
States, the Philippines and Switzerland have
because it has asserted a claim of ownership
clearly explained in decisions related to this
regarding the Arelma assets that rests on
case that wresting control over these matters
several bases: the Philippine forfeiture law
from the Philippine judicial system would
that predated the tenure of President Marcos;
disrupt international comity and reciprocal
evidence demonstrating that Marcos looted
diplomatic self-interests.
public coffers to amass a personal fortune
worth billions of dollars; findings by the
Philippine Supreme Court and Swiss Federal
E. Jurisdiction of Courts
Supreme Court that Marcos stole related
assets from the Republic; and, perhaps most SUPAPO VS. SPS. DE JESUS
critically, the recent determination by the
Philippine Supreme Court that Marcos FACTS:
pilfered the money that was deposited in the The Spouses Supapo filed a complaint for
Arelma brokerage account. Consequently, accion publiciana against Roberto and Susan
allowing the federal court judgment against de Jesus with the MeTC of Caloocan City.
the estate of Marcos to be executed on The complaint sought to compel the
property that may rightfully belong to the respondents to vacate a piece of land located
citizens of the Philippines could irreparably in Novaliches, Quezon City, and registered
undermine the Republic's claim to the under petitioners’ name. The land has an
Arelma assets. assessed value of Php39,980.00. Petitioners
Finally, we take note of the Decision did not reside on the lot but made sure to visit
rendered by the Appellate Division of the at least twice a year.
New York Supreme Court on 26 June 2012. During one of their visits, they saw two
In Swezey v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner houses built on the lot without their
& Smith, Inc., the foreign court agreed with knowledge and permission. They learned that
the dismissal of the turnover proceeding respondents occupied both houses. They
against the Arelma assets initiated by alleged demanded the surrender of the lot by bringing
victims of human rights abuses during the the dispute before the appropriate Lupong
Marcos regime. It reasoned that the Republic Tagapamayapa. The Lupon issued a
was a necessary party, but could not be certificate to file action for failure of the
subject to joinder in light of its assertion of parties to settle amicably.
sovereign immunity:
The Spouses Supapo filed a criminal case 2. Whether or not the cause of action has
against the respondents for violating PD No. prescribed.
772 (Anti-Squatting Law). The trial court
3. Whether or not the complaint for accion
convicted the respondents. On appeal, the CA
publiciana is barred by res judicata.
dismissed the case because Congress enacted
R.A. No. 8368 repealing the Anti-Squatting HELD:
Law. Notwithstanding the dismissal, the
Spouses Supapo moved for the execution of 1. YES. Under BP 129, the jurisdiction of the
the respondents’ civil liability, praying that RTC over actions involving title to or
the latter vacate the subject lot. The RTC possession of real property is plenary.
granted the motion and issued the writ of However, R.A. No. 7691 granted the MeTC,
execution. Respondents moved to quash it MTC, and MCTC the exclusive original
but the RTC denied their motion. They filed jurisdiction to hear actions where the
with the CA a petition for certiorari. The CA assessed value of the property does not
granted it and ruled that with the repeal of the exceed Php20,000 ot Php50,000 if the
Anti-Squatting Law, the criminal and civil property is located in Metro Manila.
liabilities of respondents were extinguished, Jurisdiction over actions involving title to or
but it also said that recourse may be had in possession of real property is now
court by filing the proper action for recovery determined by its assessed value. It is its fair
of possession. Thus, the Spouses Supapo market value multiplied by the assessment
filed the complaint for accion publiciana. level.

After filing their Answer, the respondents In the present case, the Spouses Supapo
moved to set their affirmative defenses for alleged that the assessed value of the subject
preliminary hearing and argued that there is lot located in Metro Manila is Php39,980.
another action pending between the same Thus, the MeTC properly acquired
parties, the complaint is barred by statute of jurisdiction over the complaint for accion
limitations, and the petitioners’ cause of publiciana.
action is barred by prior judgment. 2. NO. Lands covered by a title cannot be
The MeTC denied the motion to set the acquired by prescription or adverse
affirmative defenses for preliminary hearing. possession. Even it be supposed that the
The RTC granted the petition for certiorari of holders of the Torrens Title were aware of the
respondents because the action has other persons’ occupation of the property,
prescribed and accion publiciana falls within regardless of the length of that possession,
the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. It the lawful owners have a right to demand the
likewise denied the motion for return of their property at any time as long as
reconsideration of petitioners. On appeal, the the possession was unauthorized or merely
CA affirmed the RTC decision; hence, this tolerated.
petition. 3. NO. Res judicata is not present in the case
because:
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the MeTC properly a. First, there is no identity of parties. The
acquired jurisdiction. criminal complaint was prosecuted in the
name of the People of the Philippines. The petitioner unilaterally made the increase
accion publiciana was filed in the name of the without informing the residents therein which
Spouses Supapo. was stipulated in their agreement.
b. There is no identity of subject matter. The MTCC
criminal case involves the prosecution of a
The MTCC ruled in favour of the respondent.
crime under the Anti-Squatting Law while
The petitioner can only charge the respondent
the accion publiciana is an action to recover
the agreed flat rate for the period 1 June 2002
possession of the subject property.
to 7 August 2003 since the Certificate of
c. There is no identity of causes of action. The Public Convenience was only issued on the
People of the Philippines filed the case to latter date. Respondent should be considered
protect governmental interests, while the to have fully paid.
spouses filed the accion publiciana to protect
The MTCC disregarded the
their proprietary interests.
petitioner’s reliance on HLURB’s decision
PETITION GRANTED. because it failed to prove that it complied
with the directive to inform the HLURB of
the result of its consultation with the
F. Jurisdiction over small claims concerned homeowners as regards the rates
to be charged and the HLURB’s approval to
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC VS. EMMA such charges.
MONDEJAR, ET AL.
Petitioner also failed to submit
FACTS evidence showing the exact date when it
On 23 March 2011, petitioner filed a actually began imposing the NWRB
complaint for collection of sum of money approved rates and the formal agreement of
under Rule of Procedure for Small Claims the parties containing the terms and
Cases before the MTCC, seeking to collect conditions thereof, without which it cannot
from respondent the amount of P23, 111.71 establish with certainty respondent’s
which represented her unpaid water bills for obligation.
the period of 1 June 2002 to 30 September RTC
2005.
On a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
Petitioner claimed that it was duly the Rules of Court for grave abuse of
authorized to supply water to and collect discretion filed with the RTC, the petitioner
payment therefor from the homeowners of assailed that the MTCC disregarded
Regent Pearl Subdivision, one of whom is the petitioner’s reliance on the source of its
respondent. authority to impose new water consumption
Respondent assailed that she rates.
religiously paid the monthly charges of The RTC issued a decision dismissing
P75.00. She claimed that the increased rate of the petition, finding that the petition was only
P113.00 for every 10 cubic meter of water filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature
plus an additional P11.60 for every cubic of small claims cases as provided in
meter thereafter was not valid because the
Section23 of the Rules of Procedure on Small Petition is granted. The RTC’s
Claims Cases. To this end, the RTC ruled that decision and resolution are reversed and set
it cannot supplant the decision of the MTCC aside. RTC case is reinstated and the court a
with another decision directing respondent to quo is ordered to resolve the same with
pay petitioners a bigger sum than that which dispatch.
has been awarded.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration
G. Rule on summary procedure
but was denied.
FLORELLO R. JOSE VS. ROBERTO
Hence, this instant petition.
ALFUERTO
H. Baranggay conciliation
ISSUE
1. GEGARE VS. CA
Whether or not the RTC erred in
Facts: There was a lot with an area of
dismissing petitioner’s recourse under Rule
approximately 270 sq. m. in General Santos
65 of the RRC assailing the propriety of the
City. Its title was named after Paulino Elma.
MTCC’s decision in the subject small claims
A reversion case was filed by the State
case.
against Elma in the CFI of South Cotabato,
wherein a decision was rendered declaring
Elma’s title null and void and thus, was
RULING
ordered cancelled. The lot was reverted to the
Yes. The RTC erred in its decision. mass of public domain subject to disposition
and giving preferential right to its actual
The petition for certiorari under Rule occupant, Napoleon Gegare. (The writ of
65 of the RRC before the RTC was proper. execution went to series of processes
It is an essential requisite for the including applying before the Board of
availability of the extraordinary remedies Liquidators. They are, however, not essential
under the Rules in the absence of an appeal to our topic.)
or any “plain, speedy and adequate remedy” The chief of LASEDECO, through
in the ordinary course of law. the Board of Liquidators’ directive,
In the case at bar, the first level courts investigated the lot and recommended the
are vested exclusive jurisdiction over small division of the same equally to both parties.
claims cases, certiorari petitions assailing its The Board issued the resolution ordering the
dispositions should be filed to their said division. The Office of the President
corresponding RTCs. affirmed the board’s resolution.

The SC held that the RTC was wrong Private respondent, Armie Elma, paid
in dismissing the said petition on the ground for the value of the ½ of the lot. An original
that it was an improper remedy and, as such, certificate was then issued to him. Petitioner
the RTC case must be reinstated and was also advised by the Board to do the same.
remanded thereto for its proper disposition.
Petitioner then filed an action for filing his or
“Annulment and Cancellation of Partition of complaint in instrumentality.
Lot 5989, Ts-217, situated at Dadiangas, court.
General Santos City and Annulment of
Resolutions No. 272 and and 185 and/or to
Declare them Null and Void” against private Issue: Whether or not Katarungang
respondent and the Board. The suit was Pambarangay Law is applicable in this case.
docketed Civil Case No. 3270 in the RTC of
General Santos City. Held: Yes, Katarungang Pambarangay Law
is applicable in the case at bar.
Sequence of events after
filing: Ratio: True it is that the Board is a
government instrumentality but the petitioner
Priv. Resp: Motion to dismiss and private respondent who are also
(GRANTED) contending parties in the case are residents of
Pet: Motion for the same barangay so Section 6 of
reconsideration (GRANED) Presidential Decree No. 1508 should apply to
them as it provides---
PR: Asked for a preliminary hearing
of the grounds for the Section 6. Conciliation, pre-condition to
filing of complaint. No complaint, petition,
motion to dismiss in his affirmative action or proceeding involving any matter
defenses. (DENIED) within the authority of the Lupon as provided
in Section 2 hereof shall be filed or instituted
PR: Petition for certiorari and prohibition in
in court or any other government office for
the CA (GRANTED)
adjudication unless there has been a
Pet: Urgent Motion for reconsideration confrontation of the parties before
(DENIED) the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat and no
conciliation or settlement has been reached as
Pet: Appeal before the SC
certified by the Lupon Secretary or
(DISMISSED)
the Pangkat Secretary attested by the Lupon
or Pangkat Chairman, or unless the
settlement has been repudiated.
Respondent Petitioner’s
Elma’s Response The purpose of this confrontation is to enable
Defense the parties to settle their differences
amicably. If the other only contending party
Petitioner Such law is not is the government or its instrumentality or
failed to applicable since subdivision the case falls within the
comply with one of the parties exception but when it is only one of the
the provisions is the contending parties, a confrontation should
of PD No. 1508 government or still be undertaken among the other parties.
(Katarungang any subdivision
Pambarangay
Law) before
2. SANCHEZ VS. TUPAZ demand was served. Forcible entry and
detainer prescribes in one year counted from
3. VDA. DE BORROMEO VS. POGOY
demand to vacate the premises and the law
FACTS: only required 60 days upon which the parties
should try to reconcile in Lupon; Respondent
Petitioner herein seeks to stop respondent had more than 9 months left even if
Judge Julian B. Pogoy of the Municipal Trial reconciliation failed.
Court of Cebu City from taking cognizance
of an ejectment suit for failure of the plaintiff Under Section 4(a) of PD No. 1508, referral
to refer the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for of a dispute to the Barangay Lupon is
conciliation. required only where the parties thereto are
"individuals." An "individual" means "a
The intestate estate of the late Vito Borromeo single human being as contrasted with a
is the owner of a building bearing the social group or institution." 5 Obviously, the
deceased’s name which was leased and law applies only to cases involving natural
occupied by petitioner Petra Vda. de persons, and not where any of the parties is a
Borromeo at a monthly rental of P500.00 juridical person such as a corporation,
payable in advance within the first five days partnership, corporation sole, testate or
of the month. intestate, estate, etc.

On August 28, 1982, Atty. Ricardo Reyes, In Civil Case No. R-23915, plaintiff
administrator of the estate, served upon Ricardo Reyes is a mere nominal party who
petitioner a demand letter for her to pay is suing in behalf of the Intestate Estate of
theoverdue rentals corresponding to the Vito Borromeo. While it is true that Section
period from March to September 1982, and 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the
thereafter to vacate the premises. Petitioner administrator of an estate to sue or be sued
failed to do so and Atty. Reyes instituted an without joining the party for whose benefit
ejectment case against the former. the action is presented or defended, it is
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case pointing indisputable that the real party in interest in
out that the parties are residents of the same Civil Case No. R-23915 is the intestate estate
city and must refer the dispute to the under administration. Since the said estate is
barangay court, as required by PD No. 1508, a juridical person 6 plaintiff administrator
otherwise known may file the complaint directly in court,
as Katarungang Pambarangay Law. without the same being coursed to the
Barangay Lupon for arbitration.
The motion was dismissed thus this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not going through Lupon
was necessary? 4. PEREGRINA VS. PANIS
RULING: NO Facts:
The defense of Atty Reyes regarding
the statute of limitations is unacceptable Spouses Sanchez filed a Civil Action for
because the case was filed on September 16, Damages against Petitioners Peregrina for
1982, less than a month before the letter of alleged disrespect for the dignity, privacy and
peace of mind of the Spouses under Art.26 of brought for amicable settlement before the
the Civil Code, and for alleged defamation Lupon of said barangay”.
under Art.33 of the same code.
Sec.6 of the same law also mandates that “no
The parties are neighbors in a barangay in complaint, petition, action or proceeding
Olongapo City. However, no conciliation involving any matter within the authority of
proceedings were filed before the Lupon. the Lupon…shall be filed or instituted in
court or any government office for
Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the
adjudication unless there has been
Complaint.
confrontation of the parties before the Lupon
Before filing an Opposition, Spouses applied Chairman or the Pangkat and no conciliation
for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. or settlement has been reached as certified by
Thereafter, Spouses presented their the Lupon Secretary or Pangkat Secretary,
Opposition claiming that under Sec.6(3), PD attested by the Lupon or Pangkat Chairman,
1508, the parties may go directly to the or unless the settlement has been
Courts if the Action is coupled with a repudiated…”
provisional remedy such as a Preliminary
PD 1508 makes the conciliation process at
Attachment.
the Barangay level a condition precedent for
In resolving the Motion to Dismiss, the filing of a complaint in court. Non-
respondent Judge initially dismissed the compliance with that condition precedent
Complaint for Spouse’s failure to comply could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s
with the precondition for amicable settlement cause of action and make his complaint
under PD 1508. However, on Motion for vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack
Reconsideration, respondent Judge denied of cause of action or prematurity. The
the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss on the condition is analogous to exhaustion of
ground that under Rule 57, Sec.1 of the Rules administrative remedies, or the lack of
of Court, the application for attachment can earnest efforts to compromise suits between
be made at the commencement of the action family members, lacking which, the case can
or any time thereafter. be dismissed.
The parties therein fall squarely within the
ambit of PD 1508. They are actual residents
Issue: in the same barangay and their dispute does
Whether respondent court’s assumption of not fall under any of the excepted cases.
jurisdiction, without prior conciliation Respondent Judge erred in reconsidering his
proceedings between the parties in the Lupon previous Order of Dismissal on the ground
Tagapamayapa, is valid. that the provisional remedy of attachment
was seasonably filed. Not only was the
application for that remedy merely an
Held: afterthought to circumvent the law, but also,
Sec.3 of PD 1508 specifically provides that a writ of attachment is not available in a suit
“disputes between or among persons actually for damages where the amount, including
residing in the same barangay shall be moral damages, is contingent or unliquidated.
Prior referral to the Lupon for conciliation HELD: NO
proceedings, therefore, was indubitably
called for.
There is no dispute herein that the present
case was never referred to the Barangay
Lupon for conciliation before Aure and Aure
5. LIBRADA M. AQUINO VS. ERNEST
Lending instituted Civil Case No. 17450. In
AURE
fact, no allegation of such barangay
FACTS conciliation proceedings was made in Aure
Aure Lending filed a Complaint for and Aure Lending’s Complaint before the
ejectment against Aquino. In their MeTC.
Complaint, Aure and Aure Lending alleged
that they acquired the subject property from a It is true that the precise technical effect of
Deed of Sale. failure to comply with the requirement of
Section 412 of the Local Government Code
Aquino countered that the Complaint lacks on barangay conciliation (previously
cause of action for Aure and Aure Lending do contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree
not have any legal right over the subject No. 1508) is much the same effect produced
property. by non-exhaustion of administrative
MeTC rendered in favor of Aquino and remedies -- the complaint becomes afflicted
dismissed the Complaint for ejectment of with the vice of pre-maturity; and the
Aure and Aure Lending for non-compliance controversy there alleged is not ripe for
with the barangay conciliation process, judicial determination. The complaint
among other grounds. Te MeTC observed becomes vulnerable to a motion to
that Aure and Aquino are residents of the dismiss.[22] Nevertheless, the conciliation
same barangay but there is no showing that process is not a jurisdictional requirement,
any attempt has been made to settle the case so that non-compliance therewith cannot
amicably at the barangay level.
affect the jurisdiction which the court has
RTC affirmed otherwise acquired over the subject matter
or over the person of the defendant.[23]
CA reversed the MeTC and RTC Decisions
and remanding the case to the MeTC for As enunciated in the landmark case of
further proceedings and final determination Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court[24]:
of the substantive rights of the parties.
Ordinarily, non-compliance with the
condition precedent prescribed by P.D. 1508
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT NON- could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's
COMPLIANCE WITH THE BARANGAY cause of action and make his complaint
CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS IS A vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack of
JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT THAT cause of action or prematurity; but the same
WARRANTS THE DISMISSAL OF THE would not prevent a court of competent
COMPLAINT. jurisdiction from exercising its power of
adjudication over the case before it, where
the defendants, as in this case, failed to
object to such exercise of jurisdiction in that blanket authority to adjudicate the issue
their answer and even during the entire of ownership in ejectment suits has been thus
proceedings a quo. conferred on the inferior courts.

While petitioners could have prevented the


trial court from exercising jurisdiction over WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
the case by seasonably taking exception instant Petition is DENIED. The Court of
thereto, they instead invoked the very same Appeals Decision dated 17 October 2001 and
jurisdiction by filing an answer and seeking its Resolution dated 8 May 2002 in CA-G.R.
affirmative relief from it. What is more, they SP No. 63733 are hereby AFFIRMED.
participated in the trial of the case by cross- Costs against the petitioner.
examining respondent Planas. Upon this
premise, petitioners cannot now be
6. CRISANTA ALCARAZ MIGUEL VS.
allowed belatedly to adopt an inconsistent
JERRY D. MONTANEZ
posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the
court to which they had submitted
themselves voluntarily. x x x (Emphasis
supplied.) I. Totality rule
FLORES VS. MALLARE-PHILIPS
Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined Summary:
by the allegations pleaded in the complaint.
As long as these allegations demonstrate a  Flores has 2 causes of actions: 1st
cause of action either for forcible entry or for against Binongcal for refusing to
unlawful detainer, the court acquires pay amount representing cost of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. This truck tires purchased on credit from
principle holds, even if the facts proved Flores from Aug-Oct 1981 and 2nd
during the trial do not support the cause of against Calion for refusing to pay
action thus alleged, in which instance the amount representing cost of truck
court -- after acquiring jurisdiction -- may tires from 1981-1982. RTC
resolve to dismiss the action for insufficiency dismisses case for lack of
of evidence. jurisdiction. The SC ruled that
Flores is partially correct, but still
x x x. The law, as revised, now provides in favor of respondent judge. The
instead that when the question of application of the totality rule
possession cannot be resolved without under Section 33(l) of BP 129 and
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue Sec 11 of the Interim Rules is
of ownership shall be resolved only to subject to the requirements for the
determine the issue of possession. On its permissive joinder of parties under
face, the new Rule on Summary Procedure Section 6 of Rule 3: the total of
was extended to include within the claims shall furnish the
jurisdiction of the inferior courts ejectment jurisdictional test and that they
cases which likewise involve the issue of arose out of the same transaction or
ownership. This does not mean, however,
series of transactions and there is a counsel for respondent Calion joined
common question of law or fact. in moving for the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. Counsel for petitioner
opposed the Motion to Dismiss. RTC
HOW THE CASE REACHED THE SC: dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.
RTC Baguio City and Benguet Province
dismissed petition -> Petition for review SC PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT:
Rule 45
 Lower court has jurisdiction over the
FACTS: case following the "novel" totality
rule introduced in Sec 33(l) of BP129
 Flores appealed by certiorari from the and Sec 11 of the Interim Rules.
order of Judge Mallare-Phillipps of
the RTC of Baguio City and Benguet
Province which dismissed his
 Flores compares the provisions with
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
the pertinent portion of the former
Flores did not attach to his petition a
rule under Sec 88 Judiciary Act of
copy of his complaint in the
1948: ... Where there are several
erroneous belief that the entire
claims or causes of action between
original record of the case shall be
the same parties embodied in the
transmitted to this Court pursuant to
same complaint, the amount of the
Sec 39 of BP129. This provision
demand shall be the totality of the
applies only to ordinary appeals from
demand in all the causes of action,
the RTC to the CA.
irrespective of whether the causes of
 However, the order appealed from action arose out of the same or
states that the 1st cause of action different transactions; but where the
alleged in the complaint was against claims or causes of action joined in a
Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay single complaint are separately
the amount of P11,643.00 owned by or due to different parties,
representing cost of truck tires which each separate claim shall furnish the
he purchased on credit from Flores on jurisdictional test. ...
various occasions from Aug to Oct
 With the deletion of the proviso in the
1981; and the 2nd cause of action was
former rule, the totality rule was
against respondent Fernando Calion
reduced to clarity and brevity and the
for allegedly refusing to pay the
jurisdictional test is the totality of the
amount of P10,212.00 representing
claims in all, not in each, of the causes
cost of truck tires which he purchased
of action, irrespective of whether the
on credit from petitioner on several
causes of action arose out of the same
occasions from Mar 1981-Jan 1982.
or different transactions.
 Counsel for Binongcal filed a Motion
to Dismiss. At the MTD hearing,
 Sec 11 Interim Rules: In actions irrespective of whether the causes of
where the jurisdiction of the court is action arose out of the same or
dependent on the amount involved, different transactions. If the total
the test of jurisdiction shall be the demand exceeds twenty thousand
aggregate sum of all the money pesos, then the regional trial court has
demands, exclusive only of interest jurisdiction. Needless to state, if the
and costs, irrespective of whether or causes of action are separate and
not the separate claims are owned by independent, their joinder in one
or due to different parties. If any complaint is permissive and not
demand is for damages in a civil mandatory, and any cause of action
action, the amount thereof must be where the amount of the demand is
specifically alleged. twenty thousand pesos or less may be
the subject of a separate complaint
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT: filed with a metropolitan or municipal
 12/15/83, counsel for respondent trial court.
Binongcal filed a MTD on the ground
 However, there is a difference
of lack of jurisdiction since the
between the former and present
amount of the demand against said
rules in cases where two or more
respondent was only P11,643.00, and
plaintiffs having separate causes of
under Section 19(8) of BP129 RTC
action against a defendant join in a
shall exercise exclusive original
single complaint.
jurisdiction if the amount of the
demand is more than twenty thousand  Vda. de Rosario vs. Justice of the
pesos (P20,000.00). It was further Peace Under the former rule, "where
averred in said motion that although the claims or causes of action joined
another person, Fernando Calion, was in a single complaint are separately
allegedly indebted to petitioner in the owned by or due to different parties,
amount of P10,212.00, his obligation each separate claim shall furnish the
was separate and distinct from that jurisdictional test". As worded, the
of the other respondent. former rule applied only to cases of
permissive joinder of parties plaintiff.
ISSUES: WON the RTC correctly dismissed
However, it was also applicable to
Flores’ petition for lack of jurisdiction - YES
cases of permissive joinder of parties
HELD: defendant.

 Flores’ argument is partly correct.  The application of the totality rule


There is no difference between the under Sec 33(l) of BP 129 and Sec 11
former and present rules in cases Interim Rules is subject to the
where a plaintiff sues a defendant on requirements for the permissive
two or more separate causes of action. joinder of parties under Section 6 of
In such cases, the amount of the Rule 3: the total of claims shall
demand shall be the totality of the furnish the jurisdictional test and that
claims in all the causes of action they arose out of the same transaction
or series of transactions and there is a
common question of law or fact.
 After a careful scrutiny of the
complaint, it appears that there is a
misjoinder of parties for the reason
that the claims against respondents
Binongcal and Calion are separate
and distinct and neither of which falls
within its jurisdiction
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from
is affirmed, without pronouncement as to
costs.