Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Bokingco V CA

    Uploaded by

    iciamadarang
    1. The case involved an injunction filed by heirs against Bokingco to prevent acts that would stop the survey of land claimed by the heirs. 2. Bokingco claimed the RTC did not have jurisdiction, as the dispute was over possession of land valued below 20,000 pesos. The RTC denied this. 3. The CA dismissed Bokingco's petition for certiorari, as he failed to show grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The principal relief sought in the complaint was an injunction, not recovery of possession, so the subject matter was not capable of pecuniary estimation and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bokingco V CA

    Uploaded by

    iciamadarang
    69 views2 pages
    1. The case involved an injunction filed by heirs against Bokingco to prevent acts that would stop the survey of land claimed by the heirs. 2. Bokingco claimed the RTC did not have jurisdiction, as the dispute was over possession of land valued below 20,000 pesos. The RTC denied this. 3. The CA dismissed Bokingco's petition for certiorari, as he failed to show grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The principal relief sought in the complaint was an injunction, not recovery of possession, so the subject matter was not capable of pecuniary estimation and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Original Title

    Bokingco v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved an injunction filed by heirs against Bokingco to prevent acts that would stop the survey of land claimed by the heirs. 2. Bokingco claimed the RTC did not have jurisdiction, as the dispute was over possession of land valued below 20,000 pesos. The RTC denied this. 3. The CA dismissed Bokingco's petition for certiorari, as he failed to show grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The principal relief sought in the complaint was an injunction, not recovery of possession, so the subject matter was not capable of pecuniary estimation and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    69 views2 pages

    Bokingco V CA

    Uploaded by

    iciamadarang
    1. The case involved an injunction filed by heirs against Bokingco to prevent acts that would stop the survey of land claimed by the heirs. 2. Bokingco claimed the RTC did not have jurisdiction, as the dispute was over possession of land valued below 20,000 pesos. The RTC denied this. 3. The CA dismissed Bokingco's petition for certiorari, as he failed to show grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The principal relief sought in the complaint was an injunction, not recovery of possession, so the subject matter was not capable of pecuniary estimation and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Bokingco v CA

    4 May 2006 | Ponente: Callejo, Sr.


    Overview: The action involved here is to enjoin Bokingco, et. al. from committing acts that would tend to prevent the survey
    of the subject land. It is not one of a possessory action. s such, the subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary
    estimation and properly cogni!able e"clusively by the #T$ pursuant to B% &'(, as amended.
    Statement of the Case
    - Heirs of Celestino Busa, Heirs of Felicia Busa-Panal an t!e Heirs of Concoria Busa file a co"#laint for
    injunction an a"a$es a$ainst Bo%in$co, et. al. &it! t!e '(C of Butuan City #rayin$ to enjoin #er"anently t!e
    acts of Bo%in$co, et. al. of #re)entin$ t!e sur)ey of lan su*ject "atter of t!e case.
    - Bo%in$co, as one of t!e efenants, file a "otion to is"iss alle$in$ t!at t!e '(C !as no jurisiction o)er t!e
    su*ject "atter of t!e case. +ccorin$ to !i", t!e issue *et&een t!e #arties in)ol)es t!e #ossession of lan &it! an
    assesse )alue of less t!an P20,000 ,i.e. P-4,4-0. so jurisiction #ro#erly *elon$e to t!e M(C.
    - '(C: M/ enie. 'elief sou$!t in t!e co"#laint is injunction in orer t!at t!e ri$!t to !a)e t!e su*ject lan *e
    sur)eye &oul not *e efeate.
    - Sec. 2 of '0C 12: + #reli"inary injunction "ay *e $rante *y t!e court &!ere t!e action or #roceein$ is
    #enin$.
    - Bo%in$co file a #etition for certiorari &it! t!e C+ alle$in$ $ra)e a*use of iscretion.
    - C+: Petition is"isse for lac% of "erit. 'e"ey is una)ailin$ *ecause ,-. an orer enyin$ a M/ is interlocutory
    cannot *e t!e su*ject of t!e e3traorinary #etition for certiorari or "ana"us4 ,2. failure to isclose t!at a "otion
    for reconsieration &as file4 ,5. i not s!o& t!at t!e court acte &it! $ra)e a*use of iscretion.
    - Hence, t!is #resent #etition for re)ie& on certiorari file *y Bo%in$co.
    Statement of Facts
    - Bo%in$co, et. al. file an a##lication for t!e titlin$ of a #arcel of lan locate at Baan, Butuan City *efore t!e /67',
    0ffice of t!e C67'0. 8t a##ears t!at t!e lan in 9uestion is t!e sa"e lan in!erite *y t!e !eirs of Felicia Busa-
    Panal an Concoria Busa, an 'eynalo Busa ,Heirs. fro" t!eir late fat!er so t!e !eirs file a #rotest a$ainst
    Bo%in$co, et. al:s a##lication. Protest &as resol)e in fa)or of t!e !eirs.
    - (!e !eirs re9ueste for a Sur)ey +ut!ority to t!e sur)ey t!e lan. (!is &as su*se9uently aut!ori;e *ut &!en t!e
    sur)ey $rou# &ent to t!e area su*ject "atter of t!e case, sai $rou# &as #re)ente fro" enterin$ t!e area *y
    SP05 /acillo an Bo%in$co.
    - Heirs a)aile of t!e Baran$ay <ustice Syste" to resol)e t!e contro)ersy re$arin$ t!e sur)ey *ut to no a)ail,
    Bo%in$co et. al. still refuse to allo& t!e" to sur)ey t!e lan. + Certificate to File +ction &as su*se9uently issue *y
    t!e =u#on$ (a$a"a#aya#a.
    - ,See State"ent of t!e Case..
    Applicable Laws:
    - Section -> ,-. of BP -2>, as a"ene: '(C s!all e3ercise e3clusi)e ori$inal jurisiction in all ci)il actions in &!ic!
    t!e su*ject "atter is inca#a*le of #ecuniary esti"ation.
    Issues:
    -. ?07 C+ err in enyin$ Bo%in$co:s #etition for certiorari ,70.
    2. ?07 jurisiction #ro#erly #ertaine to t!e '(C ,@6S.
    Rationale
    -. (!e "ere fact t!at Bo%in$co faile to "o)e for t!e reconsieration of t!e court a 9uo:s orer enyin$ !is "otion to
    is"iss &as sufficient cause for t!e outri$!t is"issal of t!e sai #etition. Certiorari as a s#ecial ci)il action &ill not
    lie unless a M' is first file *efore t!e res#onent court to allo& it an o##ortunity to correct its errors, if any.
    Moreo)er, Bo%in$o faile to e)en alle$e $ra)e a*use of iscretion on t!e #art of t!e court a 9uo in renerin$ t!e
    orer enyin$ !is "otion to is"iss.
    2. +s $leane fro" t!e co"#laint, t!e #rinci#al relief sou$!t *y t!e !eirs in t!eir co"#laint is for t!e court a 9uo to
    issue an injunction a$ainst Bo%in$o an !is re#resentati)es to #er"anently enjoin t!e" fro" #re)entin$ t!e sur)ey
    of t!e su*ject lan. (!e !eirs: co"#laint !as not sou$!t to reco)er t!e #ossession or o&ners!i# of t!e su*ject lan.
    8t is not a #ossessory action. +s suc!, t!e su*ject "atter of liti$ation is inca#a*le of #ecuniary esti"ation an
    #ro#erly co$ni;a*le e3clusi)ely *y t!e court a 9uo, a 'e$ional (rial Court uner Section -> ,-. of BP Bl$. -2>, as
    a"ene *y '+ A6>-.
    a. )anila v $: B8n eter"inin$ &!et!er an action is one t!e su*ject "atter of &!ic! is not ca#a*le of
    #ecuniary esti"ation, t!e nature of t!e #rinci#al action, or re"ey sou$!t "ust first *e ascertaine. 8f it is
    #ri"arily for t!e reco)ery of a su" of "oney, t!e clai" is consiere ca#a*le of #ecuniary esti"ation, an
    jurisiction o)er t!e action &ill e#en on t!e a"ount of t!e clai". Ho&e)er, &!ere t!e *asic issue is
    so"et!in$ ot!er t!an t!e ri$!t to reco)er a su" of "oney, &!ere t!e "oney clai" is #urely inciental to,
    or a conse9uence of, t!e #rinci#al relief sou$!t, t!e action is one &!ere t!e su*ject of liti$ation "ay not *e
    esti"ate in ter"s of "oney, &!ic! is co$ni;a*le e3clusi)ely *y 'e$ional (rial Courts.B
    Judgment: C+ affir"e. Petition enie.

    You might also like