Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

2009 REMEDIAL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS

Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa a Complaint
for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas,
Batangas. The subject property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed value of
P19,700.00. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s verification and certification of non-forum
shopping executed in New York City, duly authorized by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., a notary public in the
State of New York.

Brigido filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

a) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident
of the Philippines;
b) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action involving real property
with an assessed value of P19,700.00; exclusive and original is with the Municipal Trial Court
where the defendant resides;
c) The verification and certification of non-forum shopping are fatally defective because there is no
accompanying certification issued by the Philippine Consulate in New York, authenticating that
Mr. Brown is duly authorized to notarize the document.

Rule on the foregoing grounds with reasons.

ANSWERS:

a) The first ground raised lacks merit. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by filing of his
complaint or petition and timely payment of the correct docket fees. By doing so, he submits
himself over the jurisdiction of the court. Residency or citizenship is not a requirement for
filing a complaint because the plaintiff in a civil action voluntarily submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court by the act of filing a complaint or petition and by timely payment of
the correct docket fees. Hence, such ground is without merit.

Condensed:

The first ground raised lacks merit. Residency or citizenship is not a requirement for filing a complaint in
a civil case. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by filing of his complaint or petition and timely
payment of the correct docket fees. By doing so, he voluntarily submits himself over the jurisdiction of
the court. Hence, such ground is without merit.

b) The second ground raised is likewise without merit. Under Sec. 19, par. (a) of BP 129 as
amended, Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Here, the subject of
the litigation is Rescission of Contract of Sale which in its nature is incapable of pecuniary
estimation wherein the jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Regional Trial Court and not with
Municipal Trial Court. Furthermore, the assessed value of the property involved is irrelevant
because of the nature of such action. Hence the second ground lacks merit.

Condensed:

The second ground raised is likewise without merit. The subject of the litigation is Rescission of
Contract of Sale which in its nature is incapable of pecuniary estimation wherein the jurisdiction lies
exclusively with the Regional Trial Court and not with Municipal Trial Court.

c) The last ground raised lacks merit. The required certification alluded to, pertains to official
acts, or records of official bodies, tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or
of a foreign country: the requirement in Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the 1998 Rules refers only to
paragraph (a) of Sec. 19 which does not cover notarial documents. It is enough that the notary
public who notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping is clothed with
authority to administer oath in the State or foreign country. (Answers to the Bar Examinations
Questions in Remedial Law (1987-2014) )

Condensed:

The last ground raised lacks merit. It is enough that the notary public who notarized the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping is clothed with authority to administer oath
in the State or foreign country. Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules refers only to paragraph (a) of
Sec. 19 which does not cover notarial documents.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi