Calimlim v. Ramirez, G.R. No.

L-34362, November 19, 1982

FACTS: Sometime in 1961, a judgment for a sum of money was rendered in favor of
Independent Mercantile Corporation against a certain Manuel Magali by the Municipal
Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 85136. However, when the Sheriff issued the final Deed
of Sale on January 25, 1963, it was erroneously stated therein that the sale was with
respect to "the parcel of land described in this title" (referring to TCT No. 9138) and not
only over the rights and interest of Manuel Magali in the same. The execution of the said
final Deed of Sale was annotated at the back of said title. On February 23, 1967,
Independent Mercantile Corporation filed a petition in the respondent Court to compel
Manuel Magali to surrender the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 9138 in order that the same
may be cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the said corporation. On
November 21, 1967, petitioner Modesta Calimlim, surviving spouse of Domingo Magali,
upon learning that her husband's title over the parcel of land had been cancelled, filed a
petition with the respondent Court, sitting as a cadastral court, praying for the cancellation
of TCT No. 68568. An opposition to the said petition was filed by Independent Mercantile
Corporation. After the parties submitted their respective Memoranda, the respondent
Court issued an Order dated June 3, 1968 dismissing the petition. The herein petitioners
did not appeal the dismissal of the petition they filed in LRC Record No. 39492 for the
cancellation of TCT No. 68568. Instead, on January 11, 1971, they filed the complaint.
Private respondent Francisco Ramos filed a Motion To Dismiss Civil Case No. SCC-180
on the ground that the same is barred by prior judgement or by statute of limitations.
Resolving the said Motion, the respondent Court, in its Order dated April 21, 1971,
dismissed Civil Case No. SCC- 180 on the ground of estoppel by prior judgment. A Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied by the respondent Judge in his
Order of September 2, 1971. A second Motion for Reconsideration was similarly denied
in the Order dated September 29, 197 1. (Rollo, pp. 16-17.) Hence, this Petition

ISSUE: WON the action is barred by prior judgement or by statute of limitations

HELD: The SC rules that in order to avail the defense of res judicata the decision must
be held by a court who has jurisdiction to hear and try the case. If there is lack of
jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit or of the parties, the judgment or order
cannot operate as an adjudication of the controversy. It is settled that the RTC, acting as
a land registration court, has limited jurisdiction. It cannot take on issues pertaining to an
ordinary civil action. Issues raised by the petitioner refer to the ownership of the of the
property. In short, the petition raised a highly controversial matter which is beyond the
judicial competence of a cadastral court to pass upon or to adjudicate. Also, the petitioner
cannot be faulted with laches since it is only 2 years and a half has passed since the
dismissal of the petition. It is neither fair nor legal to bind a party by the result of a suit or
proceeding which was taken cognizance of in a court which lacks jurisdiction over the
same irrespective of the attendant circumstances.
Chester De Joya v. Judge Placido C. Marquez et al. G.R. No. 162416, January 31,
2006
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition that seeks the Court to nullify and
set aside the warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge against petitioner in Criminal
Case No. 03-219952 for violation of Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in
relation to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1689. Petitioner asserts that respondent judge
erred in finding the existence of probable cause that justifies the issuance of a warrant of
arrest against him and his co-accused.

ISSUE: WON petition may seek relief from court

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Petitioner is not entitled to seek relief from the court
since he refuses to surrender to the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court cited
Justice Regalado stating that the court may acquires jurisdiction over the case even If it
did not acquire jurisdiction over the person as long as it acquired jurisdiction over the res
as when it involves the personal status or property of the plaintiff. Such Summons by
publication is only to satisfy due process requirements. Petitioner’s continued refusal to
submit to the court’s jurisdiction should give this Court more reason to uphold the action
of the respondent judge
Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291
FACTS: This action was instituted upon March 31, 1908, by "El Banco Espanol-Filipino"
to foreclose a mortgage upon various parcels of real property situated in the city of Manila.
it was necessary for the plaintiff in the foreclosure proceeding to give notice to the
defendant by publication pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order
for publication was accordingly obtained from the court, and publication was made in due
form in a newspaper of the city of Manila. Whether the clerk complied with this order does
not affirmatively appear. After the execution of this instrument by the mortgagor, he
returned to China which appears to have been his native country; and he there died, upon
January 29, 1810, without again returning to the Philippine Islands. As the defendant was
a nonresident at the time of the institution of the present action, it was necessary for the
plaintiff in the foreclosure proceeding to give notice to the defendant by publication
pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cause proceeded in usual
course in the Court of First Instance; and the defendant not having appeared, judgment
was, upon July 2, 1908, taken against him by default. Upon July 3, 1908, a decision was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff. the applicant requested the court to set aside the order
of default of July 2, 1908, and the judgment rendered upon July 3, 1908, and to vacate
all the proceedings subsequent thereto. At the hearing in the court below the application
to vacate the judgment was denied, and from this action of the court Vicente Planca, as
administrator of the estate of the original defendant, has appealed. No other feature of
the case is here under consideration than such as related to the action of the court upon
said motion.

ISSUE: WON the court acquired the necessary jurisdiction

HELD: The word jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to entertain a particular kind
of action or to administer a particular kind of relief, or it may refer to the power of the court
over the parties, or over the property which is the subject to the litigation. Jurisdiction over
the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the
property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or
it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of
law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. In an
ordinary attachment proceeding, if the defendant is not personally served, the preliminary
seizure is to, be considered necessary in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court. In an
ordinary attachment proceeding, if the defendant is not personally served, the preliminary
seizure is to, be considered necessary in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court
Optima Realty Corporation V. Hertz Phil. Exclusive Cars, Inc., G.R. No. 183035,
January 9, 2013
FACTS: Optima entered into a Contract of Lease with respondent over a 131-
squaremeter office unit and a parking spot in the Optima Building for a period of three
years. On
9 March 2004, the parties amended their lease agreement by shortening the lease period
to two years and five months, commencing on 1 October 2003 and ending on 28 February
2006. Renovations in the Optima Building commenced in January and ended in
November 2005. As a result, Hertz alleged that it experienced a 50% drop in monthly
sales and a significant decrease in its personnel’s productivity. It then requested a 50%
discount on its rent for the months of May, June, July and August 2005.9 On 8 December
2005, Optima granted the request of Hertz. However, the latter still failed to pay its rentals
for the months of August to December of 2005 and January to February 2006, Optima
informed it that the lease would expire on 28 February 2006 and would not be renewed.
On 30 January 2006, Hertz filed a Complaint. In that Complaint, Hertz prayed for the
issuance of a TRO to enjoin petitioner from committing acts that would tend to disrupt
respondent’s peaceful use and possession of the leased premises. On 14 March 2006,
Summons for the Unlawful Detainer Complaint was served on Henry Bobiles, quality
control supervisor of Hertz, who complied with the telephone instruction of manager Rudy
Tirador to receive the Summons. On 28 March 2006, or 14 days after service of the
Summons, Hertz filed a Motion for Leave of Court to file Answer with Counterclaim and
to Admit Answer with Counterclaim. MTC ruled infavor of Optima. Hertz appealed the
MeTC’s Decision to the RTC. RTC ruled in favor of Optima. On 18 June 2007, the RTC
denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of its assailed Decision. On appeal, the
CA ruled that, due to the improper service of summons, the MeTC failed to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of respondent Hertz. Motion for reconsideration was also
dismissed by the CA. Hence this petition

ISSUE: (1)WON MeTC acquired jurisdiction (2)WON there is litis pendentia

HELD: (1) Yes, The Court ruled that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person by
summons or voluntary appearance of the defendant. In this case, the MeTC acquired
jurisdiction over the person of respondent Hertz by reason of the latter’s voluntary
appearance in court. One who seeks affirmative relief from court appears voluntarily and
is deemed submitted to the jurisdiction of the court however party who make special
appearance to challenge the court jurisdiction cannot be considered as to submitted to its
authority. As shown from the records of the case, Hertz ask for a affirmative relief.
(2) Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) Identity of
parties, or at least their representation of the same interests in both actions;(2) Identity of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and(3)
Identity Here, while there is identity of parties in both cases, the court find that the rights
asserted and the reliefs prayed for under the Complaint for Specific Performance and
those under the present Unlawful Detainer Complaint are different.
Municipality of Kananga v. Madrona, G.R. No. 141375, April 30, 2003
FACTS: A boundary dispute arose between the Municipality of Kananga and the City of
Ormoc. By agreement, the parties submitted the issue to amicable settlement by a joint
session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Ormoc City and the Sangguniang Bayan of
Kananga on October 31, 1997. No amicable settlement was reached. Instead, the
members of the joint session issued Resolution No. 97-01. No amicable settlement was
reached. Instead, the members of the joint session issued Resolution No. 97-01. In
denying the Municipality of Kananga’s Motion to Dismiss, the RTC held that it had
jurisdiction over the action under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Not satisfied with the denial
of its Motion, the Municipality of Kananga filed this Petition. In their respective
Memoranda, both parties raise the lone issue of whether respondent court may exercise
original jurisdiction over the settlement of a boundary dispute between a municipality and
an independent component city.

ISSUE: WON the RTC has jurisdiction

HELD: Jurisdiction is the right to act on a case or the power and the authority to hear and
determine a cause.7 It is a question of law. As consistently ruled by this Court, jurisdiction
over the subject matter is vested by law Because it is "a matter of substantive law, the
established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law and
cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel. It should not be confused
with venue. Since there is no law providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or
agency over the settlement of boundary disputes between a municipality and an
independent component city of the same province, respondent court committed no grave
abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss. RTCs have general jurisdiction to
adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from their plenary powers.
They have the power not only to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial
action for the first time, but also to do so to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage.
Indeed, the power is not only original, but also exclusive.