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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    44 Tarnate v. Daza

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was part of the estate of Paula Agoncillo. Ramon Tarnate originally filed a case in 1942 claiming sole ownership of the land, but the records of the case were lost during World War II. In 1946, Tarnate filed a new case in an attempt to revive the original case. Felisa Tarnate argued the new case should be dismissed because the original case was still pending before the Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the pendency of another case is not grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, as jurisdiction depends on whether the court has authority over the parties and subject matter.

    Copyright:

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

    44 Tarnate v. Daza

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    57 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was part of the estate of Paula Agoncillo. Ramon Tarnate originally filed a case in 1942 claiming sole ownership of the land, but the records of the case were lost during World War II. In 1946, Tarnate filed a new case in an attempt to revive the original case. Felisa Tarnate argued the new case should be dismissed because the original case was still pending before the Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the pendency of another case is not grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, as jurisdiction depends on whether the court has authority over the parties and subject matter.

    Original Description:

    CIV PRO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was part of the estate of Paula Agoncillo. Ramon Tarnate originally filed a case in 1942 claiming sole ownership of the land, but the records of the case were lost during World War II. In 1946, Tarnate filed a new case in an attempt to revive the original case. Felisa Tarnate argued the new case should be dismissed because the original case was still pending before the Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the pendency of another case is not grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, as jurisdiction depends on whether the court has authority over the parties and subject matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views2 pages

    44 Tarnate v. Daza

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was part of the estate of Paula Agoncillo. Ramon Tarnate originally filed a case in 1942 claiming sole ownership of the land, but the records of the case were lost during World War II. In 1946, Tarnate filed a new case in an attempt to revive the original case. Felisa Tarnate argued the new case should be dismissed because the original case was still pending before the Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the pendency of another case is not grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, as jurisdiction depends on whether the court has authority over the parties and subject matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Tarnate v.

    Daza
    No. L-452, 30 July 1946

    FACTS:

    In 1937, civil case No. 3308 entitled "In re Intestate Estate of Paula Agoncillo, deceased," was
    filed in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, wherein it is still pending to date.

    On September 7, 1942, Ramon Tarnate filed in the same Court of First Instance of Batangas
    civil case No, 2 against Felisa A. Tarnate, claiming sole ownership over a parcel of land
    designated which forms part of the estate of Paula Agoncillo. The trial court rendered its
    judgment holding against Ramon Tarnate who appealed the case to the Court of Appeals,
    where the records of the case were lost or destroyed during the Japanese occupation.

    On December 2, 1945, Felisa A. Tarnate, as administratrix of the estate of deceased Paula


    Agoncillo filed a project of partition on the controverted lot. This project was opposed by Ramon
    Tarnate on the ground, basically, that there was still pending before the Court of Appeals a suit
    over the ownership of said lot and that if the records of said case had been lost he would seek
    its reconstitution, hence the project of partition should not be entertained until the questions of
    ownership were finally adjudicated. This opposition was sustained by the trial court in an order
    inform the court of the whereabouts of the records of said case involving the question of
    ownership or else bring another action as a revival of said case, otherwise the project of
    partition "shall be ipso facto considered approved."

    Accordingly, on February 6, 1946, Ramon Tarnate filed before the same Court of First Instance
    civil case No. 4010, wherein he reiterated his claim of ownership over said lot and designated
    the suit as a revival of his previous case. To this new complaint, Felisa A. Tarnate filed a motion
    to dismiss which, in essence, challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to take cognizance of
    the case on the ground that there was still a previous case on the same subject matter and
    between the same parties pending before the Court of Appeals, referring to civil case No. 2 filed
    by Ramon Tarnate on September 7, 1942. The trial court denied this motion to dismiss, and also
    a subsequent motion to reconsider its order of denial. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE + RULING

    Whether the pendency of another action is a proper ground for attacking the jurisdiction
    of the trial court.

    In a petition for certiorari only questions of jurisdiction may be raised as a general rule. And the
    pendency of another action is not a proper ground for attacking the jurisdiction of the trial court.
    The pendency of another action and lack of jurisdiction are matters entirely different from each
    other and are treated as different grounds for dismissal by the Rules of Court.
    The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the parties by the filing of the complaint
    by plaintiff and service of summons upon defendant. It has also jurisdiction over the subject
    matter which is ownership of a parcel of land. Thus, the trial court has jurisdiction to try and
    decide validly the case, and the pendency of another action can in no wise affect that
    jurisdiction.

    You might also like