Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

SCARLET… RAWR!

stay updated via rss

Tinitigan vs. Tinitigan

Posted: November 10, 2011 in Case Digest


Tags: Civpro
0
Facts: Payuran and her 3 children leased to United Elec Corp a factory building with the land.
The consent of Tinitigan Sr. (husband of Payuran) was not secured. Consequently he filed a
complaint for Annulment of Ownership & Contract of Lease at CFI Rizal. The complaint was
later amended to include “restrain defendants from encumbering or disposing property in the
name of Molave Development Corp & those in their name as husband and wife. Te court
enjoined Payuran from doing any act to dispose the property. The case was then set for hearing
primarily on the the issue of preliminary injunction. The contract of lease was settled amicably.
However Tinitigan Sr. sought judicial approval of sale of 2 rented house and lot which are
conjugal which was tenanted by Quintin Lim. The court granted. An MR was filed by Payuran
because allegedly the Loring property is suitable for condo site therefore command a higher
price. Two days thereafter, Payuran filed a legal separation case at CFI Pasay. The parties
agreed to the continuation of the administration of the conjugal property by Payuran subject to
certain conditions, one of which the Loring property shall be subject to the decision of CFI
Rizal. Meanwhile Judge of CFI Rizal denied petitioners MR for lack of merit. They appealed
but was denied on the ground that the order appealed from is merely interlocutory. Payuran
and children then filed a petition for certiorari at the CA which affirmed the same, hence this
petition.

Issue: Whether or not the court where respondent Judge (judge of CFI Rizal) sits did not
acquire jurisdiction over the Loring property hence cannot grant authority to sell.

Held: CFI Rizal did acquire jurisdiction over the Loring property. The amended complaint
prayed among others to restrain defendant from encumbering or disposing of the property.
This in effect brings the Loring property under the jurisdiction of the court (CFI Rizal).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. It is determined by the allegations of

https://scarletyarn.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/tinitigan-vs-tinitigan/ 22/10/2019, 6>57 PM


Page 1 of 2
the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some
of the claims asserted therein. It cannot be made dependent upon the defenses. The Filing of
the legal separation case after the order of denial is a tactical maneuver to frustrate the order.
The administration of property is given to Payuran but such is not absolute. It was subject to a
condition. The CFI Pasay even recognized the jurisdiction primarily acquired by CFI Rizal.
Jurisdiction once acquired continue until the case is finally terminated.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

REPORT THIS AD

Blog at WordPress.com.

https://scarletyarn.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/tinitigan-vs-tinitigan/ 22/10/2019, 6>57 PM


Page 2 of 2

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi