7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

1/176

Rules 1-4

1. Dial Corp. v. Judge Soriano Marlouis Planas

The petitioners are foreign corporations organized and eisting under the la!s of the "nited States# the

"nited $ingdo%# and Mala&sia# are not do%iciled in the Philippines# nor do the& have officers or agents#

place of 'usiness# or propert& in the Philippines( the& are not licensed to engage# and are not engaged# in

'usiness here. The respondent )%perial *egeta'le +il Co%pan )nc. ,or )*+ for 'revit& is a

Philippine corporation !hich through its president# Do%inador Monteverde# had entered into several

contracts for the deliver& of coconut oil to the petitioners. Those contracts stipulate that an& dispute

'et!een the parties !ill 'e settled through ar'itration under the rules of either the /ederation of +ils

Seeds and /ats 0ssociation ,/+S/0 or the ational )nstitute of +il Seed Products ,)+P. 2ecause )*+

defaulted under the contracts# the petitioners and 13 others# initiated ar'itration proceedings a'road# and

so%e have alread& o'tained ar'itration a!ards against )*+.

+n 0pril # 156# )*+ filed a co%plaint for in7unction and da%ages against nineteen ,15 foreign coconut

oil 'u&ers including the petitioners# !ith !ho% its president# Do%inador Monteverde# had entered into

contracts for the deliver& of coconut oil ,Civil Case o. 6-48199# RTC Manila entitled )%perial

*egeta'le +il Co.# )nc. vs. Dial Corporation et al.. )*+ repudiated Monteverde:s contracts on the

grounds that the& !ere %ere paper trading in futures as no actual deliver& of the coconut oil !as

allegedl& intended '& the parties( that the 2oard of Directors of )*+ convened in a special %eeting on

March ;1# 156 and re%oved Do%inador Monteverde fro% his position as president of the corporation#

na%ed in his place# Rodrigo Monteverde# and diso!ned Do%inador Monteverde:s allegedl& illegal and

unauthorized acts( that the defendants have allegedl& harassed )*+ to co%pl& !ith Do%inador:s

contracts and to co%e to a settle%ent !ith the%. )*+ pra&ed for the issuance of a te%porar& restrainingorder or !rit of preli%inar& in7unction to stop the defendants fro% harassing )*+ !ith their insistent

de%ands to recognize the contracts entered into '& Do%inador Monteverde and fro% portra&ing the )*+

as one that defaults on its contracts and o'ligations and has fallen into 'ad ti%es and fro% interfering !ith

)*+:s nor%al conduct of 'usiness. )*+ also pra&ed that the defendants pa& it %oral da%ages of P3

%illion# actual da%ages of P18 %illion# ee%plar& da%ages of P3 %illion# attorne&:s fees of P1 %illion#

P Philippines corporation ,0nne 2. Pursuant to that order# the petitioners !ere

served !ith su%%ons and cop& of the co%plaint '& D=> courier service.

+n 0pril ;3# 156# !ithout su'%itting to the court:s 7urisdiction and onl& for the purpose of o'7ecting to

said 7urisdiction over their persons# the petitioners filed %otions to dis%iss the co%plaint against the% on

the ground that the etraterritorial service of su%%ons to the% !as i%proper and that hence the court did

not ac?uire 7urisdiction over the%. +n Dece%'er 13# 156# the court denied their %otions to dis%iss and

upheld the validit& of the etraterritorial service of su%%ons to the% on the ground that the present

https://www.facebook.com/Bastekohttps://www.facebook.com/Basteko

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

2/176

action relates to propert& rights !hich lie in contracts !ithin the Philippines# or !hich defendants clai%

liens or interests# actual or inchoate# legal or e?uita'le ,par. ;# co%plaint. 0nd one of the reliefs

de%anded consists# !holl& or in part# in ecluding the defendants fro% an& interest in such propert& for

the reason that their transactions !ith plaintiff:s for%er president are ultra vires. /urther%ore# as foreign

corporations doing 'usiness in the Philippines !ithout a license# the& opened the%selves to suit 'eforePhilippine courts# pursuant to Sec. 1

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

3/176

personal action is one 'rought for the recover& of personal propert for the enforce%ent of so%e contract

or recover& of da%ages for its 'reach# or for the recover& of da%ages for the co%%ission of an in7ur& to

the person or propert& ,=ernandez vs. Develop%ent 2an of the Philippines# 61 SCR0 ;5;. EreFF

anGH1I!

0s Civil Case o. 6-48199 is a personal action# personal or su'stituted service of su%%ons on the

defendants# not etraterritorial service# is necessar& to confer 7urisdiction on the court. The rule is

eplained in Moran:s Co%%ents on the Rules of Court thusA

0s a general rule# !hen the defendant is not residing and is not found in the Philippines# the Philippine

courts cannot tr& an& case against hi% 'ecause of the i%possi'ilit& of ac?uiring 7urisdiction over his

person unless he voluntaril& appears in court. 2ut# !hen the action affects the personal status of the

plaintiff residing in the Philippines# or is intended to seize or dispose of an& propert real or personal# of

the defendant located in the Philippines# it %a& 'e validl& tried '& the Philippine courts# for then# the&

have 7urisdiction over the res# i.e.# the personal status of the plaintiff or the propert& of the defendant and

their 7urisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. *enue in such cases %a&

'e laid in the province !here the propert& of the defendant or a part thereof involved in the litigation is

located. ,3 Moran:s Co%%ents on the Rules of Court# ;nd Kd.# p. 183.

)n an action for in7unction# etraterritorial service of su%%ons and co%plaint upon the non-resident

defendants cannot su'7ect the% to the processes of the regional trial courts !hich are po!erless to reach

the% outside the region over !hich the& eercise their authorit& ,Sec.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

4/176

the rules re?uiring proper service of su%%ons to such corporations as provided in Rule 14 of the Rules of

Court and Section 1; of the Corporation Code.

The respondent court:s finding that# '& filing %otions to dis%iss# the petitioners h&potheticall& ad%itted

the allegations of the co%plaint that the& are doing 'usiness in the Philippines !ithout an& license# and

that the& %a& 'e served !ith su%%ons and other court processes through their agents or representatives

enu%erated in paragraph ; of the co%plaint# is contradicted '& its order authorizing )*+ to su%%on the%

'& etraterritorial service# a %ode of service !hich is resorted to !hen the defendant is not found in the

Philippines# does not transact 'usiness here# and has no resident agent on !ho% the su%%ons %a& 'e

served.

@=KRK/+RK# @e hold that the etraterritorial service of su%%ons on the petitioners !as i%proper#

hence null and void. The petition for certiorari is granted.

;. Mi7ares v. Javier Joseph 0drian >la%es

+ur %artial la! eperience 'ore strange un!anted fruits# and !e have &et to finish !eeding out its 'itter

crop. @hile the restoration of freedo% and the funda%ental structures and processes of de%ocrac& have

'een %uch lauded# according to a significant nu%'er# the changes# ho!ever# have not sufficientl& healed

the colossal da%age !rought under the oppressive conditions of the %artial la! period. The cries of

7ustice for the tortured# the %urdered# and the desaparecidosarouse outrage and s&%path& in the hearts of

the fair-%inded# &et the dispensation of the appropriate relief due the% cannot 'e etended through thesa%e caprice or !hi% that characterized the ill-!ind of %artial rule. The da%age done !as not %erel&

personal 'ut institutional# and the proper re'ue to the ini?uitous past has to involve the a!ard of

reparations due !ithin the confines of the restored rule of la!.

The petitioners in this case are pro%inent victi%s of hu%an rights violations 1 !ho# deprived of the

opportunit& to directl& confront the %an !ho once held a'solute rule over this countr have chosen to do

'attle instead !ith the earthl& representative# his estate. The clash has 'een for no! interrupted '& a trial

court ruling# see%ingl& co%ported to legal logic# that re?uired the petitioners to pa& a !hopping filing fee

of over /our =undred Sevent&-T!o Million Pesos ,P46;#888#888.88 in order that the& 'e a'le to enforce

a 7udg%ent a!arded the% '& a foreign court. There is an understanda'le te%ptation to cast the struggle

!ithin the si%plistic confines of a %oralit& tale# and to e%plo& short-cuts to arrive at !hat %ight see% the

desira'le solution. 2ut eas refleive resort to the e?uit& principle all too often leads to a result that %a&

'e %orall& correct# 'ut legall& !rong.

onetheless# the application of the legal principles involved in this case !ill co%fort those !ho %aintain

that our su'stantive and procedural la!s# for all their perceived a%'iguit& and suscepti'ilit& to %&riad

https://www.facebook.com/josephadrian.llameshttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_139325_2005.html#fnt1https://www.facebook.com/josephadrian.llameshttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_139325_2005.html#fnt1

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

5/176

interpretations# are inherentl& fair and 7ust. The relief sought '& the petitioners is epressl& %andated '&

our la!s and confor%s to esta'lished legal principles. The granting of this petition for certiorari is

!arranted in order to correct the legall& infir% and una'ashedl& un7ust ruling of the respondent 7udge.

The essential facts 'ear little ela'oration. +n 5 Ma& 1551# a co%plaint !as filed !ith the "nited States

District Court ,"S District Court# District of =a!aii# against the Kstate of for%er Philippine President

/erdinand K. Marcos ,Marcos Kstate. The action !as 'rought forth '& ten /ilipino citizens;!ho each

alleged having suffered hu%an rights a'uses such as ar'itrar& detention# torture and rape in the hands of

police or %ilitar& forces during the Marcos regi%e.. Real# rendered a /inal Judg%ent (inal !udgment

a!arding the plaintiff class a total of +ne 2illion ine =undred Sit& /our Million /ive Thousand Kight=undred /ift& ine Dollars and inet& Cents ,L1#594#883#35.58. The inal !udgment!as eventuall&

affir%ed '& the "S Court of 0ppeals for the inth Circuit# in a decision rendered on 16 Dece%'er 1559.9

+n ;8 Ma& 1556# the present petitioners filed #omplaint!ith the Regional Trial Court# Cit& of Maati

,Maati RTC for the enforce%ent of the inal !udgment. The& alleged that the& are %e%'ers of the

plaintiff class in !hose favor the "S District Court a!arded da%ages.6The& argued that since the Marcos

Kstate failed to file a petition for certiorari !ith the "S Supre%e Court after the inth Circuit Court of

0ppeals had affir%ed theinal !udgment# the decision of the "S District Court had 'eco%e final and

eecutor and hence should 'e recognized and enforced in the Philippines# pursuant to Section 38# Rule

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

6/176

response# the petitioners clai%ed that an action for the enforce%ent of a foreign 7udg%ent is not capa'le

of pecuniar& esti%ation( hence# a filing fee of onl& /our =undred Ten Pesos ,P418.88 !as proper#

pursuant to Section 6,c of Rule 141.5

+n 5 Septe%'er 155# respondent Judge Santiago Javier Ranada 18of the Maati RTC issued the su'7ect

$rderdis%issing the co%plaint !ithout pre7udice. Respondent 7udge opined that contrar& to the

petitioners: su'%ission# the su'7ect %atter of the co%plaint !as indeed capa'le of pecuniar& esti%ation#

as it involved a 7udg%ent rendered '& a foreign court ordering the pa&%ent of definite su%s of %one

allo!ing for eas& deter%ination of the value of the foreign 7udg%ent. +n that score# Section 6,a of Rule

141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure !ould find application# and the RTC esti%ated the proper a%ount of

filing fees !as approi%atel& /our =undred Sevent& T!o Million Pesos# !hich o'viousl& had not 'een

paid.

ot surprisingl petitioners filed a %otion for &econsideration# !hich Judge Ranada denied in an $rder

dated ; Jul& 1555. /ro% this denial# petitioners filed a 'etition for #ertiorariunder Rule 93 assailing the

t!in orders of respondent 7udge.11The& pra&ed for the annul%ent of the ?uestioned orders# and an order

directing the reinstate%ent of Civil Case o. 56-183; and the conduct of appropriate proceedings

thereon.

Petitioners su'%it that their action is incapa'le of pecuniar& esti%ation as the su'7ect %atter of the suit is

the enforce%ent of a foreign 7udg%ent# and not an action for the collection of a su% of %one& or recover&

of da%ages. The& also point out that to re?uire the class plaintiffs to pa& /our =undred Sevent& T!o

Million Pesos ,P46;#888#888.88 in filing fees !ould negate and render inutile the li'eral construction

ordained '& the Rules of Court# as re?uired '& Section 9# Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure#

particularl& the inepensive disposition of ever& action.

Petitioners invoe Section 11# 0rticle ))) of the 2ill of Rights of the Constitution# !hich provides that

/ree access to the courts and ?uasi-7udicial 'odies and ade?uate legal assistance shall not 'e denied to

an& person '& reason of povert a %andate !hich is essentiall& defeated '& the re?uired eor'itant filing

fee. The ad7udicated a%ount of the filing fee# as arrived at '& the RTC# !as characterized as indisputa'l&

unfair# ine?uita'le# and un7ust.

The Co%%ission on =u%an Rights ,C=R !as per%itted to intervene in this case.1;)t urged that the

petition 'e granted and a 7udg%ent rendered# ordering the enforce%ent and eecution of the District Court

7udg%ent in accordance !ith Section 4# Rule

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

7/176

The Court:s disposition on the issue of filing fees !ill prove a useful 7urisprudential guidepost for courts

confronted !ith actions enforcing foreign 7udg%ents# particularl& those lodged against an estate. There is

no 'asis for the issuance a li%ited pro hac vice ruling 'ased on the special circu%stances of the

petitioners as victi%s of %artial la!# or on the e%otionall&-charged allegation of hu%an rights a'uses.

0n ea%ination of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court readil& evinces that the respondent 7udge ignored the

clear letter of the la! !hen he concluded that the filing fee 'e co%puted 'ased on the total su% clai%ed

or the stated value of the propert& in litigation.

)n dis%issing the co%plaint# the respondent 7udge relied on Section 6,a# Rule 141 as 'asis for the

co%putation of the filing fee of over P46; Million. The provision statesA

SKC. 6. Cler of Regional Trial Court.-

,a /or filing an action or a per%issive counterclai% or money claim against an estate not based on

judgment# or for filing !ith leave of court a third-part fourth-part etc.# co%plaint# or a co%plaint in

intervention# and for all clerical services in the sa%e ti%e# if the total su% clai%ed# eclusive of interest#

or the started value of the propert& in litigation# isA

1. >ess than P 188#88.88 N P 388.88

;. P 188#888.88 or %ore 'ut less than P 138#888.88 N P 88.88

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

8/176

Petitioners: co%plaint %a& have 'een lodged against an estate# 'ut it is clearl& 'ased on a 7udg%ent# the

inal !udgmentof the "S District Court. The provision does not %ae an& distinction 'et!een a local

7udg%ent and a foreign 7udg%ent# and !here the la! does not distinguish# !e shall not distinguish.

0 reading of Section 6 in its entiret& reveals several instances !herein the filing fee is co%puted on the

'asis of the a%ount of the relief sought# or on the value of the propert& in litigation. The filing fee for

re?uests for etra7udicial foreclosure of %ortgage is 'ased on the a%ount of inde'tedness or the

%ortgagee:s clai%.14 )n special proceedings involving properties such as for the allo!ance of !ills# the

filing fee is again 'ased on the value of the propert&.13The aforecited rules evidentl& have no application

to petitioners: co%plaint.

Petitioners rel& on Section 6,'# particularl& the proviso on actions !here the value of the su'7ect %atter

cannot 'e esti%ated. The provision reads in fullA

SKC. 6. Cler of Regional Trial Court.-

,' /or filing

1. 0ctions !here the value

of the su'7ect %atter

cannot 'e esti%ated --- P 988.88

;. Special civil actions ecept

7udicial foreclosure !hich

shall 'e governed '&

paragraph ,a a'ove --- P 988.88

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

9/176

against an estate 'ased on 7udg%ent. @hat provision# if an then should appl& in deter%ining the filing

fees for an action to enforce a foreign 7udg%ent

To resolve this ?uestion# a proper understanding is re?uired on the nature and effects of a foreign

7udg%ent in this 7urisdiction.

The rules of co%it utilit& and convenience of nations have esta'lished a usage a%ong civilized states '&

!hich final 7udg%ents of foreign courts of co%petent 7urisdiction are reciprocall& respected and rendered

efficacious under certain conditions that %a& var& in different countries.16This principle !as pro%inentl&

affir%ed in the leading 0%erican case ofilton v. )uyot1and epressl& recognized in our 7urisprudence

'eginning !ith*ngenholl v. +alter E. $lsen #o.15 The conditions re?uired '& the Philippines for

recognition and enforce%ent of a foreign 7udg%ent !ere originall& contained in Section

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

10/176

The rules are silent as to !hat initiator& procedure %ust 'e undertaen in order to enforce a foreign

7udg%ent in the Philippines. 2ut there is no ?uestion that the filing of a civil co%plaint is an appropriate

%easure for such purpose. 0 civil action is one '& !hich a part& sues another for the enforce%ent or

protection of a right#;5and clearl& an action to enforce a foreign 7udg%ent is in essence a vindication of a

right prescinding either fro% a conclusive 7udg%ent upon title or the presu%ptive evidence of aright.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

11/176

The Rules use the ter% !here the value of the su'7ect %atter cannot 'e esti%ated. The su'7ect %atter of

the present case is the 7udg%ent rendered '& the foreign court ordering defendant to pa& plaintiffs definite

su%s of %one as and for co%pensator& da%ages. The Court finds that the value of the foreign 7udg%ent

can 'e esti%ated( indeed# it can even 'e easil& deter%ined. The Court is not %inded to distinguish

'et!een the enforce%ent of a 7udg%ent and the a%ount of said 7udg%ent# and separate the t!o# forpurposes of deter%ining the correct filing fees. Si%ilarl a plaintiff suing on pro%issor& note for P1

%illion cannot 'e allo!ed to pa& onl& P488 filing fees (sic# on the reasoning that the su'7ect %atter of his

suit is not the P1 %illion# 'ut the enforce%ent of the pro%issor& note# and that the value of such

enforce%ent cannot 'e esti%ated. Re&es in/apitan v. candia#

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

12/176

This is an intriguing argu%ent# 'ut ulti%atel& it is self-evident that !hile the su'7ect %atter of the action

is undou'tedl& the enforce%ent of a foreign 7udg%ent# the effect of a providential a!ard !ould 'e the

ad7udication of a su% of %one&. Perhaps in theor such an action is pri%aril& for the enforce%ent of the

foreign 7udg%ent# 'ut there is a certain o'tuseness to that sort of argu%ent since there is no den&ing that

the enforce%ent of the foreign 7udg%ent !ill necessaril& result in the a!ard of a definite su% of %one&.

2ut 'efore !e insist upon this conclusion past 'e&ond the point of reconing# !e %ust ea%ine its

possi'le ra%ifications. Petitioners raise the point that a declaration that an action for enforce%ent of

foreign 7udg%ent %a& 'e capa'le of pecuniar& esti%ation %ight lead to an instance !herein a first level

court such as the Municipal Trial Court !ould have 7urisdiction to enforce a foreign 7udg%ent. 2ut under

the statute defining the 7urisdiction of first level courts# 2.P. 1;5# such courts are not vested !ith

7urisdiction over actions for the enforce%ent of foreign 7udg%ents.

Sec.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

13/176

%atter of an action to enforce a foreign 7udg%ent is the foreign 7udg%ent itself# and the cause of action

arising fro% the ad7udication of such 7udg%ent.

0n ea%ination of Section 15,9# 2.P. 1;5 reveals that the instant co%plaint for enforce%ent of a foreign

7udg%ent# even if capa'le of pecuniar& esti%ation# !ould fall under the 7urisdiction of the Regional Trial

Courts# thus negating the fears of the petitioners. )ndeed# an ea%ination of the provision indicates that it

can 'e relied upon as 7urisdictional 'asis !ith respect to actions for enforce%ent of foreign 7udg%ents#

provided that no other court or office is vested 7urisdiction over such co%plaintA

Sec. 15.!urisdiction in civil cases. B Regional Trial Courts shall eercise eclusive original 7urisdictionA

,9 )n all cases not !ithin the eclusive 7urisdiction of an& court# tri'unal# person or 'od& eercising

7urisdiction or an& court# tri'unal# person or 'od& eercising 7udicial or ?uasi-7udicial functions.

Thus# !e are co%forta'le in asserting the o'vious# that the co%plaint to enforce the "S District Court

7udg%ent is one capa'le of pecuniar& esti%ation. 2ut at the sa%e ti%e# it is also an action 'ased on

7udg%ent against an estate# thus placing it 'e&ond the a%'it of Section 6,a of Rule 141. @hat provision

then governs the proper co%putation of the filing fees over the instant co%plaint /or this case and other

si%ilarl& situated instances# !e find that it is covered '& Section 6,',

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

14/176

participating countries all of such o'stacles to recognition such as reciprocit& and r1vision au fond.3a!.34@hile it has not received the ratifications needed to have it tae effect# 33 it is recognized as

representing current scholarl& thought on the topic.39

either the Philippines nor the "nited States aresignatories to the Convention.

Oet even if there is no unani%it& as to the applica'le theor& 'ehind the recognition and enforce%ent of

foreign 7udg%ents or a universal treat& rendering it o'ligator& force# there is consensus that the via'ilit&

of such recognition and enforce%ent is essential. Steiner and *agts noteA

. . . The notion of unconnected 'odies of national la! on private international la!# each follo!ing a ?uite

separate path# is not one conducive to the gro!th of a transnational co%%unit& encouraging travel and

co%%erce a%ong its %e%'ers. There is a conte%porar& resurgence of !riting stressing the identit& or

si%ilarit& of the values that s&ste%s of pu'lic and private international la! see to further N a co%%unit&

interest in co%%on# or at least reasona'le# rules on these %atters in national legal s&ste%s. 0nd such

generic principles as reciprocit& pla& an i%portant role in 'oth fields.36

Salonga# !hose treatise on private international la! is of !orld!ide reno!n# points outA

@hatever 'e the theor& as to the 'asis for recognizing foreign 7udg%ents# there can 'e little dispute that

the end is to protect the reasona'le epectations and de%ands of the parties. @here the parties have

su'%itted a %atter for ad7udication in the court of one state# and proceedings there are not tainted !ith

irregularit the& %a& fairl& 'e epected to su'%it# !ithin the state or else!here# to the enforce%ent of

the 7udg%ent issued '& the court.3

There is also consensus as to the re?uisites for recognition of a foreign 7udg%ent and the defenses against

the enforce%ent thereof. 0s earlier discussed# the eceptions enu%erated in Section 4# Rule

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

15/176

The via'ilit& of the pu'lic polic& defense against the enforce%ent of a foreign 7udg%ent has 'een

recognized in this 7urisdiction.9

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

16/176

This is a significant proposition# as it acno!ledges that the procedure and re?uisites outlined in Section

4# Rule

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

17/176

constitutional right. iven our preceding discussion# it is not necessar& to utilize this provision in order to

grant the relief sought '& the petitioners. )t is aio%atic that the constitutionalit& of an act !ill not 'e

resolved '& the courts if the controvers& can 'e settled on other grounds 6

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

18/176

)n 0ugust 1598# 3Q9 portion of the propert& !as reconve&ed '& said spouses to /rancisco# Regina#

Perfects# Constancio and Matilde all surna%ed ofuente and Transfer Certificate of Title o. 69

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

19/176

Ching >eng andQor the ad%inistrator of his estate to surrender to the Register of Deeds of the Province of

Rizal the o!ner:s cop& of T.C.T. o. 511

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

20/176

@=KT=KR +R +T 0 DK0D M0 C=) >K 0DQ+R =)S KST0TK M0O 2K *0>)D>O

SKR*KD @)T= S"MM+S 0D DKC)S)+ 2O P"2>)C0T)+.

))

@=KT=KR +R +T 0 0CT)+ /+R RKC+*KO0CK +/ PR+PKRTO 0D C0CK>>0T)+

+/ T)T>K )S *3'E&$3A%# 0D )/ S+# @+">D 0 DK0D M0 0DQ+R =)S KST0TK 2K

2+"D 2O SKR*)CK +/ S"MM+S 0D DKC)S)+ 2O P"2>)C0T)+.

)))

@=KT=KR +R +T T=K PR+CKKD)S /+R RKC+*KO0CK 0D C0CK>>0T)+ +/

T)T>K C0 2K =K>DE72'A&0E.

)*

@=KT=KR +R +T T=K TR)0> C+"RT 0C")RKD J"R)SD)CT)+ +*KR T=K S"2JKCT

M0TTKR 0D T=K P0RT)KS.

*

@=KT=KR +R +T PR)*0TK RKSP+DKT )S ")>TO +/ >0C=KS ) )ST)T"T) T=K

0CT)+ /+R RKC+*KO0CK 0/TKR T=K >0PSK +/ 15 OK0RS /R+M T=K T)MK T=K

DKCRKK +/ RK)STR0T)+ @0S )SS"KD.

Petitioner:s appeal hinges on !hether or not the Court of 0ppeals has decided a ?uestion of su'stance in a

!a& pro'a'l& not in accord !ith la! or !ith the applica'le decisions of the Supre%e Court.

Petitioner avers that an action for reconve&ance and cancellation of title is in personamand the court a

quonever ac?uired 7urisdiction over the deceased Ching >eng andQor his estate '& %eans of service of

su%%ons '& pu'lication in accordance !ith the ruling laid do!n in Ang /amv.&osillosa et al.# 9 Phil.

44 1538.

+n the other hand# private respondent argues that an action for cancellation of title is quasi in rem# for

!hile the 7udg%ent that %a& 'e rendered therein is not strictl& a 7udg%ent in in rem# it fies and settles

the title to the propert& in controvers& and to that etent partaes of the nature of the 7udg%ent in rem#

hence# service of su%%ons '& pu'lication %a& 'e allo!ed unto Ching >eng !ho on the face of the

co%plaint !as a non-resident of the Philippines in line !ith the doctrine enunciated in 'er6ins v.8i9on#

95 Phil. 19 15

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

21/176

for%er are directed against specific persons and see personal 7udg%ents# !hile the latter are directed

against the thing or propert& or status of a person and see 7udg%ents !ith respect thereto as against the

!hole !orld. 0n action to recover a parcel of land is a real action 'ut it is an action in personam# for it

'inds a particular individual onl& although it concerns the right to a tangi'le thing ,0ng >a% v. Rosillosa#

supra.

Private respondent:s action for reconve&ance and cancellation of title 'eing in personam# the 7udg%ent in

?uestion is null and void for lac of 7urisdiction over the person of the deceased defendant Ching >eng.

*eril the action !as co%%enced thirteen ,1eng:s Torrens Title %ust 'e filed in the original land registration

case# RTC# Pasig# Rizal# sitting as a land registration court in accordance !ith Section 11; of the >and

Registration 0ct ,0ct o. 459# as a%ended not in C/) Pasa& Cit& in connection !ith# or as a %ere

incident in Civil Case o. 9-P ,Kstanislao v. =onrado# 114 SCR0 64 15;.

Section 11; of the sa%e la! re?uires notice to all parties in interest. Since Ching >eng !as alread& in

the other !orld !hen the su%%ons !as pu'lished he could not have 'een notified at all and the trial court

never ac?uired 7urisdiction over his person. The ex2parteproceedings for cancellation of title could not

have 'een held ,Kstanislao v. =onrado#supra.

The cited case of'er6ins v.8i9on#suprais inapplica'le to the case at 'ar since petitioner Perins !as a

non-resident defendant sued in Philippine courts and sought to 'e ecluded fro% !hatever interest she hasin 3;#64 shares of stocs !ith 2enguet Consolidated Mining Co%pan&. The action 'eing a quasi in rem

su%%ons '& pu'lication satisfied the constitutional re?uire%ent of due process.

The petition to set aside the 7udg%ent for lac of 7urisdiction should have 'een granted and the a%ended

co%plaint of private respondent 'ased on possession and filed onl& in 156 dis%issed outrightl&. Ching

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

22/176

>eng is an innocent purchaser for value as sho!n '& the evidence adduced in his 'ehalf '& petitioner

herein# tracing 'ac the roots of his title since 1598# fro% the ti%e the decree of registration !as issued.

The sole re%ed& of the lando!ner !hose propert& has 'een !rongfull& or erroneousl& registered in

another:s na%eBafter one &ear fro% the date of the decreeBis not to set aside the decree# 'ut respecting

the decree as incontroverti'le and no longer open to revie!# to 'ring an ordinar& action in the ordinar&

court of 7ustice for da%ages if the propert& has passed unto the hands of an innocent purchaser for value

,S Sr. v. )nter%ediate 0ppellate Court# .R. o. 9964;( Teoville Develop%ent Corporation v. )0C# et

al.# .R. o. 63811# June 19# 15.

/ailure to tae steps to assert an& rights over a disputed land for 15 &ears fro% the date of registration of

title is fatal to the private respondent:s cause of action on the ground of laches. >aches is the failure or

neglect# for an unreasona'le length of ti%e to do that !hich '& eercising due diligence could or should

have 'een done# earlier( it is negligence or o%ission to assert a right !ithin a reasona'le ti%e !arranting a

presu%ption that the part& entitled to assert it either has a'andoned it or declined to assert it ,2ailon-

Casilao v. Court of 0ppeals# .R. o. 616# 0pril 13# 15( *illa%or v. Court of 0ppeals# .R. o.

4138# June ;6# 15.

The real purpose of the Torrens s&ste% is to ?uiet title to land and to stop forever an& ?uestion as to its

legalit&. +nce a title is registered# the o!ner %a& rest secure# !ithout the necessit& of !aiting in the

portals of the court# or sitting on the %irador su casa# to avoid the possi'ilit& of losing his land

,ational rains 0uthorit& v. )0C# 136 SCR0

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

23/176

@=KRK/+RK# on the 'asis of !hat prescinds# the assailed resolution and orders issued '& the pu'lic

respondent are perforce 0">>KD and SKT 0S)DK.This pronounce%ent is nonetheless rendered

!ithout pre7udice to the refiling of the sa%e case '& the private respondents !ith the court a quo.eave of Court toKffect Su%%ons '& Pu'lication. +nDece%'er ;# 155# pu'lic respondent issued an +rder granting the

K-parte Motion for >eave of Court to Kffect Su%%ons '& Pu'lication. +n Jul& oss the& filed and annotated !ith the Register of Deeds of

Maati Cit& so that title to the parcel of land su'7ect of the Deed of 0'solute Sale in favor of the Plaintiffs

'e transferred in their na%es. Thereafter the Register of Deeds of MaatiCit& or Muntinlupa Cit& %a&

cancel Transfer of Certificate of Title o. 1459

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

24/176

respondent den&ing the said %otion. The petitioners %oved for the eecution of thecontroverted

7udg%ent !hich the respondent 7udge ulti%atel& granted.4

Thereafter# respondents filed 'efore the C0 a Petition for certiorari under Rule 93 of the Revised Rules of

Civil Procedure# ?uestioning the 7urisdiction of the regional trial court ,RTC.

Ruling of the $ourt of &ppeals

The C0 held that the trial court had no authorit& to issue the ?uestioned Resolution and +rders.

0ccording to the appellate court# the RTC never ac?uired 7urisdiction over respondents 'ecause of the

invalid service of su%%ons upon the%. irst# the sheriff failed to co%pl& !ith the re?uire%ents of

su'stituted service of su%%ons# 'ecause he did not specif& in the Return of Su%%ons the prior efforts he

had %ade to locate the% and the i%possi'ilit& of pro%ptl& serving the su%%ons upon the% '& personal

service.econd# the su'se?uent su%%ons '& pu'lication !as e?uall& infir%# 'ecause the Co%plaint !as a

suit for specific perfor%ance and therefore an action in personam. Conse?uentl the Resolution and the

+rders !ere null and void# since the RTC had never ac?uired 7urisdiction over respondents.

=ence# this Petition.3

'ssues

)n their Me%orandu%# petitioners raise the follo!ing issues for our considerationA

0. The =onora'le Court of 0ppeals erred in not holding that the assailed Resolution dated Dece%'er 6#

1555!as alread& final and eecutor&

2. The =onora'le Court of 0ppeals erred in giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari of private

respondents despite the pendenc& of an appeal earlier filed

C. The =onora'le Court erred in not holding that the Petition for Certiorari !as ti%e 'arred

D. The =onora'le Court of 0ppeals erred in holding that the proceedings in the lo!er court are null and

void due to invalid and defective service of su%%ons and the court did not ac?uire 7urisdiction over the

person of the respondents.9

)n su%# the %ain issue revolves around the validit& of the service of su%%ons on respondents.

%he $ourts Ruling

The Petition has no %erit.

ain 'ssue

Validity of the Service of Summons

Petitioners aver that the C0 erred in ruling that the service of su%%ons on respondents !as invalid. The&

su'%it that although the case filed 'efore the trial court !as deno%inated as an action for specific

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/147369.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/147369.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/147369.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/147369.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/147369.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/147369.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/147369.htm#_ftn6

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

25/176

perfor%ance# it !as actuall& an action quasi in rem,'ecause it involved a piece of real propert& located in

the Philippines. The& further argue that in actions quasi in rem involving o!nership of a parcel of land# it

is sufficient that the trial court ac?uire 7urisdiction over the res.Thus# the su%%ons '& pu'lication# !hich

the& effected su'se?uent to the su'stituted service of su%%ons# !as allegedl& sufficient.

+n the other hand# respondents %aintain that the proceedings in the trial court !ere null and void 'ecause

of the invalid and defective service of su%%ons. 0ccording to the%# the Return of Su%%ons issued '&

the process server of the RTC failed to state that he had eerted earnest efforts to effect the service of

su%%ons. =e allegedl& tried to serve it personall& on the% onJul& ;;# 155 at o.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

26/176

therein# or ,' '& leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of 'usiness !ith so%e co%petent

person in charge thereof.

0s can 'e gleaned fro% the a'ove-?uoted Sections# personal service of su%%ons is preferred to

su'stituted service. +nl& if the for%er cannot 'e %ade pro%ptl& can the process server resort to the latter.

Moreover# the proof of service of su%%ons %ust ,a indicate the i%possi'ilit& of service of su%%ons

!ithin a reasona'le ti%e( ,'specif& the efforts eerted to locate the defendant( and ,c state that the

su%%ons !as served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion !ho is residing in the address# or !ho

is in charge of the office or regular place of 'usiness# of the defendant. 6)t is lie!ise re?uired that the

pertinent facts proving these circu%stances 'e stated in the proof of service or in the officers return. The

failure to co%pl& faithfull strictl& and full& !ith all the foregoing re?uire%ents of su'stituted service

renders the service of su%%ons ineffective.

Defective Personal

Service of Summons

)n the instant case# it appears that the process server hastil& and capriciousl& resorted to su'stituted

service of su%%ons !ithout actuall& eerting an& genuine effort to locate respondents.0 revie! of the

records5reveals that the onl& effort he eerted !as to go to o.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

27/176

The necessit& of stating in the process servers Return or Proof of Service the %aterial facts and

circu%stances sustaining the validit& of su'stituted service !as eplained '& this Court inamilton v.

/evy#11fro% !hich !e ?uoteA

The pertinent facts and circu%stances attendant to the service of su%%ons %ust 'e stated in the

proof of service or +fficers Return( other!ise# an& su'stituted service %ade in lieu of personal service

cannot 'e upheld.This is necessar& 'ecause su'stituted service is in derogation of the usual %ethod of

service. )t is a %ethod etraordinar& in character and hence %a& 'e used onl& as prescri'ed and in the

circu%stances authorized '& statute.=ere# no such eplanation !as %ade. /ailure to faithfull strictl

and full& co%pl& !ith the re?uire%ents of su'stituted service renders said service ineffective.1;

Moreover# the re?uire%ents of su'stituted service of su%%ons and the effect of nonco%pliance !ith the

su'se?uent proceedingstherefor !ere discussed in%adrigal v. #ourt of Appeals1

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

28/176

3. ochan v. ochan Ma&e Oarzo

This is a petition for revie! seeing to set aside the decision of the Court of 0ppeals dated Septe%'er 18#

1555 in C0-.R. SP o. 4584#1as !ell as its Resolution;dated ove%'er ;;# ;888# den&ing the Motion

for Reconsideration.

Respondents !ere stocholders of the /eli ochan and Sons Realt& Corporation and the Mactan Realt&

Develop%ent Corporation. So%eti%e in 1559# respondents offered to sell their shares in the t!o

corporations to the individual petitioners# the heirs of the late 0%'assador Kste'an ochan# for and in

consideration of the su% of P;88#888#888A88. Petitioners accepted and paid the said a%ount to

respondents. 0ccordingl respondents issued to petitioners the necessar& Receipts.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

29/176

0ccordingl respondents clai%ed that the& are entitled to the conve&ance of the afore%entioned

properties# in addition to the a%ount of P;88#888#888.88# !hich the& acno!ledge to have received fro%

petitioners. /urther# respondents pra&ed for %oral da%ages of P13#888#888.88# ee%plar& da%ages of

P;#888#888.88# attorne&:s fees of P14#888#888.88# and litigation epenses of P;#888#888.88.

Petitioners filed their ans!er# raising the follo!ing affir%ative defensesA ,a lac of 7urisdiction '& the

trial court for non-pa&%ent of the correct docet fees( ,' unenforcea'ilit& of the o'ligation to conve& real

properties due to lac of a !ritten %e%orandu% thereof# pursuant to the Statute of /rauds( ,c

etinguish%ent of the o'ligation '& pa&%ent( ,d !aiver# a'andon%ent and renunciation '& respondent of

all their clai%s against petitioners( and ,e non-7oinder of indispensa'le parties.

+n 0ugust 6# 155# petitioners filed !ith the trial court a %otion for a preli%inar& hearing on the

affir%ative defenses. )n an +rder dated 0ugust 11# 155# the trial court denied the %otion# ruling as

follo!sA

0s the grant of said %otion lies in the discretion of the court under Section 9 of Rule 19 of the 1556 Rulesof Civil Procedure# this Court in the eercise of its discretion# here'& denies the said %otion 'ecause the

%atters sought to 'e preli%inaril& heard do not appear to 'e tena'le. /or one# the statute of frauds does

not appl& in this case 'ecause the contract !hich is the su'7ect %atter of this case is alread& an eecuted

contract. The statute of frauds applies onl& to eecutor& contracts. 0ccording to Dr. 0rturo M. Tolentino#

a leading authorit& in civil la!# since the statute of frauds !as enacted for the purpose of preventing

frauds# it should not 'e %ade the instru%ent to further the%. Thus# !here one part& has perfor%ed his

o'ligation under a contract# e?uit& !ould agree that all evidence should 'e ad%itted to prove the alleged

agree%ent ,P2 vs. Philippine *egeta'le +il Co%pan 45 Phil. 56. /or another# the contention of the

defendants that the clai%s of the plaintiffs are alread& etinguished '& full pa&%ent thereof does not

appear to 'e indu'ita'le 'ecause the plaintiffs denied under oath the due eecution and genuineness of the

receipts !hich are attached as 0nnees 1-0# 1-2 and 1-C of defendants: ans!er. This issue therefore has

to 'e deter%ined on the 'asis of preponderance of evidence to 'e adduced '& 'oth parties. Then# still for

another# the contention that the co%plaint is defective 'ecause it allegedl& has failed to i%plead

indispensa'le parties appears to 'e !anting in %erit 'ecause the parties to the %e%orandu% of agree%ent

adverted to in the co%plaint are all parties in this case. Then the %atter of pa&%ent of doceting and filing

fees is not a fatal issue in this case 'ecause the record sho!s that the plaintiffs had paid at least

P193#888.88 plus in the for% of filing and doceting fees. /inall regarding eerting earnest efforts

to!ard a co%pro%ise '& the plaintiffs# the defendants cannot sa& that there is an a'sence of an allegation

to this effect in the co%plaint 'ecause paragraph 11 of the co%plaint precisel& states that 'efore filing

this case# earnest efforts to!ard a co%pro%ise have 'een %ade.

Petitioners: %otion for reconsideration of the a'ove +rder !as denied '& the trial court on Septe%'er 11#

155.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

30/176

Petitioners thus filed a petition for certiorari !ith the Court of 0ppeals# doceted as C0-.R. SP o.

4584. +n Septe%'er 18# 1555# the Court of 0ppeals rendered the appealed decision dis%issing the

petition on the ground that respondent court did not co%%it grave a'use of discretion# tanta%ount to lac

or in ecess of 7urisdiction in den&ing the %otion to hear the affir%ative defenses.

0gain# petitioners filed a %otion for reconsideration# 'ut the sa%e !as denied '& the Court of 0ppeals in

its assailed Resolution of ove%'er ;;# ;888.5

Petitioners# thus# filed the instant petition for revie! anchored on the follo!ing groundsA

).

T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD R0*K 0D P0>P02>K KRR+R ) /)D) T=0T

T=K C+RRKCT D+C$KT /KKS =0*K 2KK P0)D.

)).

T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD SKR)+"S KRR+R ) R">) T=0T T=K PM+0 @0S 0P0RT)0>>O KUKC"TKD C+TR0CT 0D =KCK +T C+*KRKD 2O T=K ST0T"TK +/

/R0"DS.

))).

T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD R0*K KRR+R ) DKC)D) T=0T T=K C>0)MS +/

PR)*0TK RKSP+DKTS =0*K +T 2KK KUT)")S=KD 2O P0OMKT +R /">>

SKTT>KMKT DKSP)TK T=K PRKSKCK +/ RKCK)PTS S)KD 2O T=K PR)*0TK

RKSP+DKTS S=+@) T=K C+TR0RO.

)*.

T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD R0*K KRR+R ) RKS+>*) T=0T /K>)U +C=0

))) 0D KSTK20 +C=0# JR. 0RK +T )D)SPKS02>K P0RT)KS 0D T=KRK/+RK KKD

+T 2K )MP>K0DKD 0S P0RT)KS.18

Respondents filed their Co%%ent#11arguing# in fine# that petitioners are guilt& of foru%-shopping !hen

the& filed t!o petitions for certiorari !ith the Court of 0ppeals( and that the Court of 0ppeals did not err

in dis%issing the petition for certiorari.

The instant petition has %erit.

The rule is !ell-settled that the court ac?uires 7urisdiction over an& case onl& upon the pa&%ent of the

prescri'ed docet fees. )n the case of un *nsurance $ffice, /td. (*$/ v. Asuncion#1;this Court held that

it is not si%pl& the filing of the co%plaint or appropriate initiator& pleading# 'ut the pa&%ent of the

prescri'ed docet fee that vests a trial court !ith 7urisdiction over the su'7ect %atter or nature of the

action.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

31/176

Respondents %aintain that the& paid the correct docet fees in the a%ount of P193#888.88 !hen the& filed

the co%plaint !ith the trial court. Petitioners# on the other hand# contend that the co%plaint is in the

nature of a real action !hich affects title to real properties( hence# respondents should have alleged therein

the value of the real properties !hich shall 'e the 'asis for the assess%ent of the correct docet fees.

The Court of 0ppeals found that the co%plaint !as one for specific perfor%ance and incapa'le of

pecuniar& esti%ation. @e do not agree.

)t is necessar& to deter%ine the true nature of the co%plaint in order to resolve the issue of !hether or not

respondents paid the correct a%ount of docet fees therefor. )n this 7urisdiction# the dictu% adhered to is

that the nature of an action is deter%ined '& the allegations in the 'od& of the pleading or co%plaint itself#

rather than '& its title or heading.1an6 of /ucena#14this Court held that a real action is one !here the

plaintiff sees the recover& of real propert& or# as indicated in section ;,a of Rule 4 ,no! Section 1# Rule

4 of the 1556 Rules of Civil Procedure# a real action is an action affecting title to or recover& of

possession of real propert&.

)t has also 'een held that !here a co%plaint is entitled as one for specific perfor%ance 'ut nonetheless

pra&s for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of land# its pri%ar& o'7ective and nature is one to

recover the parcel of land itself and# thus# is dee%ed a real action. )n such a case# the action %ust 'e filed

in the proper court !here the propert& is locatedA

)n this Court# the appellant insists that her action is one for specific perfor%ance# and# therefore# personal

and transitor& in nature.

This ver& issue !as considered and decided '& this Court in the case of%anuel >. &ui9 vs. !.%. 0uason

#o., *nc. et al.# >-195;# pro%ulgated

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

32/176

Rules of Court# !hich provides that actions affecting title to or recover& of possession of real propert&

shall 'e co%%enced and tried in the province !here the propert& or an& part thereof lies.13

)n the case at 'ar# therefore# the co%plaint filed !ith the trial court !as in the nature of a real action#

although ostensi'l& deno%inated as one for specific perfor%ance. Conse?uentl the 'asis for deter%ining

the correct docet fees shall 'e the assessed value of the propert or the esti%ated value thereof as

alleged '& the clai%ant. Rule 141# Section 6# of the Rules of Court# as a%ended '& 0.M. o. 88-;-81-SC#

providesA

Section 6. #ler6s of &egional 0rial #ourts. B

,'

)n a real action# the assessed value of the propert or if there is none# the esti%ated value thereof shall 'e

alleged '& the clai%ant and shall 'e the 'asis in co%puting the fees.

@e are not un%indful of our pronounce%ent in the case of un *nsurance#19to the effect that in case the

filing of the initiator& pleading is not acco%panied '& pa&%ent of the docet fee# the court %a& allo!

pa&%ent of the fee !ithin a reasona'le ti%e 'ut in no case 'e&ond the applica'le prescriptive period.

=o!ever# the li'eral interpretation of the rules relating to the pa&%ent of docet fees as applied in the

case of un *nsurancecannot appl& to the instant case as respondents have never de%onstrated an&

!illingness to a'ide '& the rules and to pa& the correct docet fees. )nstead# respondents have stu''ornl&

insisted that the case the& filed !as one for specific perfor%ance and da%ages and that the& actuall& paid

the correct docet fees therefor at the ti%e of the filing of the co%plaint. Thus# it !as stated in the case of

un *nsuranceA16

The principle in%anchestercould ver& !ell 'e applied in the present case. The pattern and the intent todefraud the govern%ent of the docet fee due it is o'vious not onl& in the filing of the original co%plaint

'ut also in the filing of the second a%ended co%plaint.

=o!ever# in%anchester# petitioner did not pa& an& additional docet fee until the case !as decided '&

this Court on Ma& 6# 156. Thus# in Manchester# due to the fraud co%%itted on the govern%ent# this

Court held that the court a quodid not ac?uire 7urisdiction over the case and that the a%ended co%plaint

could not have 'een ad%itted inas%uch as the original co%plaint !as null and void.

)n the present case# a %ore li'eral interpretation of the rules is called for considering that#

unlie%anchester# private respondent de%onstrated his !illingness to a'ide '& the rules '& pa&ing theadditional docet fees as re?uired. The pro%ulgation of the decision in %anchester%ust have had that

so'ering influence on private respondent !ho thus paid the additional docet fee as ordered '& the

respondent court. )t triggered his change of stance '& %anifesting his !illingness to pa& such additional

docet fee as %a& 'e ordered.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

33/176

Respondents accuse petitioners of foru%-shopping !hen the& filed t!o petitions 'efore the Court of

0ppeals. Petitioners# on the other hand# contend that there !as no foru%-shopping as there !as no

identit& of issues or identit& of reliefs sought in the t!o petitions.

@e agree !ith petitioners that the& are not guilt& of foru%-shopping. The deplora'le practice of foru%-

shopping is resorted to '& litigants !ho# for the purpose of o'taining the sa%e relief# resort to t!o

different fora to increase his or her chances of o'taining a favora'le 7udg%ent in either one. )n the case of

)olangco v. #ourt of Appeals#1!e laid do!n the follo!ing test to deter%ine !hether there is foru%-

shoppingA

"lti%atel !hat is trul& i%portant to consider in deter%ining !hether foru%-shopping eists or not is the

veation caused the courts and the parties-litigant '& a person !ho ass different courts andQor

ad%inistrative agencies to rule on the sa%e or related causes andQor grant the sa%e or su'stantiall& the

sa%e reliefs# in the process creating the possi'ilit& of conflicting decisions 'eing rendered '& the different

fora upon the sa%e issues.

)n su%# t!o different orders !ere ?uestioned# t!o distinct causes of action and issues !ere raised# and

t!o o'7ectives !ere sought( thus# foru% shopping cannot 'e said to eist in the case at 'ar.

>ie!ise# !e do not find that there is foru%-shopping in the case at 'ar. The first petition# doceted as

C0-.R. SP. o. 4584# !hich is no! the su'7ect of the instant petition# involved the propriet& of the

affir%ative defenses relied upon '& petitioners in Civil Case o. CK2-;134. The second petition#

doceted as C0-.R. SP o. 3453# raised the issue of !hether or not pu'lic respondent Judge Dicdican

!as guilt& of %anifest partialit& !arranting his inhi'ition fro% further hearing Civil Case o. CK2-

;134.

More i%portantl the t!o petitions did not see the sa%e relief fro% the Court of 0ppeals. )n C0-.R.

SP. o. 4584# petitioners pra&ed# a%ong others# for the annul%ent of the orders of the trial court den&ing

their %otion for preli%inar& hearing on the affir%ative defenses in Civil Case o. CK2-;134. o such

reliefs are involved in the second petition# !here petitioners %erel& pra&ed for the issuance of an order

en7oining pu'lic respondent Judge Dicdican fro% further tr&ing the case and to assign a ne! 7udge in his

stead.

True# the trial court has the discretion to conduct a preli%inar& hearing on affir%ative defenses. )n the

case at 'ar# ho!ever# the trial court co%%itted a grave a'use of its discretion !hen it denied the %otion

for preli%inar& hearing. 0s !e have discussed a'ove# so%e of these defenses# !hich petitioners invoed

as grounds for the dis%issal of the action# appeared to 'e indu'ita'le# contrar& to the pronounce%ent of

the trial court. )ndeed# the a'use of discretion it co%%itted a%ounted to an evasion of positive dut& or

virtual refusal to perfor% a dut& en7oined '& la!# or to act at all in conte%plation of la!#15!hich !ould

have !arranted the etraordinar& !rit of certiorari. =ence# the Court of 0ppeals erred !hen it dis%issed

the petition for certiorari filed '& petitioners.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

34/176

@=KRK/+RK# in vie! of the foregoing# the instant petition is R0TKD. This case is RKM0DKD to

the Regional Trial Court of Ce'u Cit 2ranch 11# !hich is directed to forth!ith conduct the preli%inar&

hearing on the affir%ative defenses in Civil Case o. CK2-;134.

S+ +RDKRKD.

8avide, !r., #.!.?@apunan, and 'ardo, !!.,concur.

9. Mercado v. C0Si%pson rantV

This special civil action for certiorarisees to annul the Court of 0ppeals Resolutions dated /e'ruar& ;

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

35/176

+n /e'ruar& ;;# 1555# Kduardo# thru a different counsel# filed a otion for Early Resolution of the

otion for *eave to File $omplaint in 'ntervention # !hich !as raffled to 2ranch 148 of the Maati

Cit& RTC. During the hearing of the %otion# the trial court infor%ed Kduardo that a Decision had alread&

'een rendered in Civil Case o. 5-4389 '& 2ranch 145 and the appeal fro% said 7udg%ent had alread&

'een resolved '& the Court of 0ppeals. onetheless# it directed the parties to file their respective positionpapers. Concepcion filed anpposition +ith otion for 'ssuance of Writ of Eecution'ut she died on

Ma& 13# 1555# 'efore her %otion could 'e resolved.

)n an rder3 dated Septe%'er ;6# 1555# 2ranch 148# denied Kduardos %otion for !ant of %erit#

pointing out that his Motion for >eave to /ile Co%plaint in )ntervention had 'een dis%issed previousl&

'& 2ranch 145 in its +rder dated /e'ruar& 15# 1558# !ithout an& Motion for Reconsideration 'eing filed

fro% the aforesaid order of dis%issal.

+n Septe%'er

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

36/176

nonetheless# it should not 'e ignored or 'elittled# lest it scathes and pre7udices the other part&s su'stantive

rights.Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration 'ut !as denied.

Dissatisfied# petitioner no! co%es to this Court on the grounds thatA

1. T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD R0*K 02"SK +/ D)SCRKT)+ 0M+"T) T+

>0C$ +R KUCKSS +/ J"R)SD)CT)+ @=K )T D)SM)SSKD T=K PKT)T)+# S+>K>O +

PR+CKD"R0> R+"DS.

;. PKT)T)+KR =0S 0 ++D 0D MKR)T+R)+"S C0"SK +/ 0CT)+ 0S T=K P"2>)C

RKSP+DKT RK)+0> TR)0> C+"RT# 2R0C= 148# M0$0T) C)TO C+MM)TTKD R0*K

02"SK +/ D)SCRKT)+ 0M+"T) T+ >0C$ +R KUCKSS +/ J"R)SD)CT)+ @=K )T

DK)KD T=K PKT)T)+ /+R RK>)K/ /)>KD 2O T=K =KRK) PKT)T)+KR.5

Petitioners argu%ents lac persuasiveness. )t 'ears stressing that this case %ust 'e dis%issed outright as

the petitioner adopted the !rong re%ed& in 'ringing this case 'efore this Court. Petitioner should have

filed a petition for revie! under Rule 43 of the 1556 Rules of Civil Procedure instead of a special civil

action for certiorari under Rule 93. The proper re%ed& of a part& aggrieved '& a decision of the Court of

0ppeals is a petition for revie! under Rule 43# !hich is not identical to a petition for certiorari under

Rule 93. "nder Rule 43# decisions# final orders or resolutions of the Court of 0ppeals in an& case# i.e.#

regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved# %a& 'e appealed to us '& filing a petition

for revie!# !hich !ould 'e 'ut a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. +n the other

hand# a special civil action under Rule 93 is an independent action 'ased on the specific grounds therein

provided and# as a general rule# cannot 'e availed of as a su'stitute for the lost re%ed& of an ordinar&

appeal# including that to 'e taen under Rule 43. 0ccordingl !hen a part& adopts an i%proper re%ed

as in this case# his petition %a& 'e dis%issed outright.18

Petitioner should have availed of the ordinar& appeal process such as a petition for revie! under Rule 43#

!ithin 13 da&s after notice of denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. "ndou'tedl petitioner had

alread& lost this re%ed& !hen he filed this special civil action on Januar& 19# ;881. 0 Petition for

Certiorari cannot 'e a su'stitute for the lost or lapsed re%ed& of appeal# !here such loss is occasioned '&

the petitioners o!n neglect or error in the choice of re%edies. 112& his o!n account# petitioner received

the +rder den&ing the Motion for Reconsideration fro% the RTC on ove%'er 16# ;888. )nstead of filing

apetition for review!ith the appellate court !ithin 13 da&s thereof or until Dece%'er ;# ;888# he filed

apetition for certiorari'& registered %ail on Januar& 19# ;881# 'ut 'elatedl& %ade the pa&%ent of docetfees onl& on Januar& 16# ;881. ote!orth petitioner did not even atte%pt to eplain !h& he !as una'le

to file a petition for revie! !ithin the regle%entar& period.

)ndeed# not infre?uentl litigants and parties to a petition have invoed li'eral construction of the Rules

of Court to 7ustif& lapses in its o'servance. =opefull it is not si%pl& a cover-up of their o!n neglect or

sheer ignorance of procedure. @hile indeed this Court has on occasion set aside procedural irregularities

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn11

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

37/176

in the interest of 7ustice# it %ust 'e stressed that li'eralit& of construction of the rules should not 'e a

panacea for all procedural %aladies. /or this Court !ill not tolerate !anton disregard of the procedural

rules under the guise of li'eral construction.

)n an& event# even if !e !ere to disregard the procedural defects# !e find that this petition %ust still 'e

dis%issed as the appellate court did not co%%it an& grave a'use of discretion a%ounting to !ant or

ecess of 7urisdiction in dis%issing the petition for late pa&%ent of filing fees. Petitioner undenia'l& paid

his docet fees 'e&ond the regle%entar& period of 98 da&s for filing a petition for certiorari. @ell settled

is the rule that the court cannot ac?uire 7urisdiction over the su'7ect %atter of a case# unless the docet

fees are paid.1;0nd !here the filing of the initiator& pleading is not acco%panied '& pa&%ent of the

docet fees# the court %a& allo! pa&%ent of the fee !ithin a reasona'le ti%e 'ut in no case 'e&ond the

applica'le prescriptive or regle%entar& period.1anc filed '&

petitioners# the %otion to refer the case to the Court en bancis granted 'ut the %otion to set the case for

oral argu%ent is denied.

Petitioners in support of their contention that the filing fee %ust 'e assessed on the 'asis of the a%ended

co%plaint cite the case of%agaspi vs. &amolete. .The& contend that the Court of 0ppeals erred in that

the filing fee should 'e levied '& considering the a%ount of da%ages sought in the original co%plaint.

The environ%ental facts of said case differ fro% the present in that B

1. The Magaspi case !as an action for recover& of o!nership and possession of a parcel of land

!ith da%ages. /@hile the present case is an action for torts and da%ages and specific perfor%ance !ith

pra&er for te%porar& restraining order# etc.0

;. )n the Magaspi case# the pra&er in the co%plaint sees not onl& the annul%ent of title of the

defendant to the propert the declaration of o!nership and deliver& of possession thereof to plaintiffs 'ut

also ass for the pa&%ent of actual %oral# ee%plar& da%ages and attorne&:s fees arising therefro% in the

a%ounts specified therein. 1=o!ever# in the present case# the pra&er is for the issuance of a !rit of

preli%inar& prohi'itor& in7unction during the pendenc& of the action against the defendants: announced

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn15https://www.facebook.com/alanlancelot.makasiarhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/150241.htm#_ftn15https://www.facebook.com/alanlancelot.makasiar

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

38/176

forfeiture of the su% of P< Million paid '& the plaintiffs for the propert& in ?uestion# to attach such

propert& of defendants that %a&'e sufficient to satisf& an& 7udg%ent that %a&'e rendered# and after

hearing# to order defendants to eecute a contract of purchase and sale of the su'7ect propert& and annul

defendants: illegal forfeiture of the %one& of plaintiff# ordering defendants 7ointl& and severall& to pa&

plaintiff actual# co%pensator& and ee%plar& da%ages as !ell as ;3W of said a%ounts as %a&'e provedduring the trial as attorne&:s fees and declaring the tender of pa&%ent of the purchase price of plaintiff

valid and producing the effect of pa&%ent and to %ae the in7unction per%anent. The a%ount of da%ages

sought is not specified in the pra&er although the 'od& of the co%plaint alleges the total a%ount of over

P6 Million as da%ages suffered '& plaintiff.2

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

39/176

the Repu'lic as defendant and reducing the a%ount of da%ages# and attorne&:s fees pra&ed for to

P188#888.88. Said a%ended co%plaint !as also ad%itted. 6

)n the Magaspi case# the action !as considered not onl& one for recover& of o!nership 'ut also for

da%ages# so that the filing fee for the da%ages should 'e the 'asis of assess%ent. 0lthough the pa&%ent

of the doceting fee of P98.88 !as found to 'e insufficient# nevertheless# it !as held that since the

pa&%ent !as the result of an honest difference of opinion as to the correct a%ount to 'e paid as docet

fee the court had ac?uired 7urisdiction over the case and the proceedings thereafter had !ere proper and

regular. .7=ence# as the a%ended co%plaint superseded the original co%plaint# the allegations of

da%ages in the a%ended co%plaint should 'e the 'asis of the co%putation of the filing fee...

)n the present case no such honest difference of opinion !as possi'le as the allegations of the co%plaint#

the designation and the pra&er sho! clearl& that it is an action for da%ages and specific perfor%ance. The

doceting fee should 'e assessed '& considering the a%ount of da%ages as alleged in the original

co%plaint.

0s reiterated in the Magaspi case the rule is !ell-settled that a case is dee%ed filed onl& upon pa&%ent

of the docet fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court . ./ Thus# in the present case the trial court

did not ac?uire 7urisdiction over the case '& the pa&%ent of onl& P418.88 as docet fee. either can the

a%end%ent of the co%plaint there'& vest 7urisdiction upon the Court. .0/or an legal purposes there is no

such original co%plaint that !as dul& filed !hich could 'e a%ended. Conse?uentl the order ad%itting

the a%ended co%plaint and all su'se?uent proceedings and actions taen '& the trial court are null and

void.

The Court of 0ppeals therefore# aptl& ruled in the present case that the 'asis of assess%ent of the docet

fee should 'e the a%ount of da%ages sought in the original co%plaint and not in the a%ended co%plaint.

The Court cannot close this case !ithout %aing the o'servation that it fro!ns at the practice of counsel

!ho filed the original co%plaint in this case of o%itting an& specification of the a%ount of da%ages in the

pra&er although the a%ount of over P6 %illion is alleged in the 'od& of the co%plaint. This is clearl&

intended for no other purpose than to evade the pa&%ent of the correct filing fees if not to %islead the

docet cler in the assess%ent of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice !as co%pounded !hen# even as

this Court had taen cognizance of the ano%al& and ordered an investigation# petitioner through another

counsel filed an a%ended co%plaint# deleting all %ention of the a%ount of da%ages 'eing ased for in the

'od& of the co%plaint. )t !as onl& !hen in o'edience to the order of this Court of +cto'er 1# 153# thetrial court directed that the a%ount of da%ages 'e specified in the a%ended co%plaint# that petitioners:

counsel !rote the da%ages sought in the %uch reduced a%ount of P18#888#888.88 in the 'od& of the

co%plaint 'ut not in the pra&er thereof. The design to avoid pa&%ent of the re?uired docet fee is

o'vious.

The Court serves !arning that it !ill tae drastic action upon a repetition of this unethical practice.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

40/176

To put a stop to this irregularit henceforth all co%plaints# petitions# ans!ers and other si%ilar pleadings

should specif& the a%ount of da%ages 'eing pra&ed for not onl& in the 'od& of the pleading 'ut also in

the pra&er# and said da%ages shall 'e considered in the assess%ent of the filing fees in an& case. 0n&

pleading that fails to co%pl& !ith this re?uire%ent shall not 'i' accepted nor ad%itted# or shall other!ise

'e epunged fro% the record.

The Court ac?uires 7urisdiction over an& case onl& upon the pa&%ent of the prescri'ed docet fee. 0n

a%end%ent of the co%plaint or si%ilar pleading !ill not there'& vest 7urisdiction in the Court# %uch less

the pa&%ent of the docet fee 'ased on the a%ounts sought in the a%ended pleading. The ruling in the

Magaspi case .1in so far as it is inconsistent !ith this pronounce%ent is overturned and reversed.

@=KRK/+RK# the %otion for reconsideration is denied for lac of %erit.

S+ +RDKRKD.

0eehan6ee, #.!., ap, ernan, 3arvasa, %elencio2errera, )utierre9, !r., #ru9, 'aras, eliciano, >idin,

armiento and #ortes, !!., concur.

'aras, !., too6 no part.

. reat Southern Mariti%e Services Corp v. 0cuna 0%s "s%an =ussain

2efore us is a petition for revie! on certiorariunder Rule 43 of the Rules of Court assailing the

Decision1of the Court of 0ppeals dated June a'or Relations Co%%ission ,>RC dated Januar& 13# 1556 in >RC C0 o.

81819-59.

The factual 'acground of the case is as follo!sA

Petitioner reat Southern Mariti%e Services Corporation ,SMSC is a %anning agenc& organized and

eisting under Philippine la!s. )t is the local agent of petitioner /err& Casinos >i%ited. Petitioner Pioneer

)nsurance and Suret& Corporation is the suret& co%pan& of petitioner SMSC.

+n +cto'er 6# 155

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

41/176

t!o %onths salar& pro rata( so%eti%e in Jul& 155RC9!hich# on Januar& 13# 1556# set aside the decision of the P+K0 and

dis%issed the co%plaint for illegal dis%issal. 6The >RC held that the contested letters are not onl&

declarations of release and ?uitclai% 'ut resignations as !ell. )t further held that there is no concrete

evidence of undue pressure# force and duress in the eecution of the resignation letters. The >RC gave

credence to petitioners clai% that respondents pre-ter%inated their contracts en masse'ecause t!o of the

respondents# =a&dee 0nne 2. 0cua and Marites T. Clarion# are no! !oring in Singapore.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn5http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/%5Chhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn5http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/%5Chhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/140189.htm#_ftn7

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

42/176

Respondents filed a %otion for reconsideration 'ut the >RC denied the sa%e in a Resolution dated

0pril

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

43/176

>ie!ise# the certification on non-foru% shopping !as not signed '& respondents 'ut '& their counsel. )n

an& event# petitioners insist that respondents voluntaril& resigned fro% their e%plo&%ent.

)n their Co%%ent# respondents allege that the instant petition highlights the sa%e argu%ents alread&

raised and s?uarel& resolved '& the Court of 0ppeals. evertheless# the& reiterate that the& did not resign

fro% e%plo&%ent 'ut !ere a'ruptl& and uncere%oniousl& ter%inated '& petitioner /err& Casinos

>i%ited.15

Section RC !as received '& respondents counsel on Januar& ;4#

1556.;4+n /e'ruar& 15# 1556# respondents filed a %otion for reconsideration;3!hich !as denied '& the

>RC in a Resolution dated 0pril

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

44/176

0s regards the verification signed onl& '& respondents counsel# this procedural lapse could have

!arranted the outright dis%issal of respondents petition for certiorari 'efore the Court of 0ppeals.

=o!ever# it %ust 'e re%e%'ered that the rules on foru% shopping# !hich !ere precisel& designed to

pro%ote and facilitate the orderl& ad%inistration of 7ustice# should not 'e interpreted !ith such a'solute

literalness as to su'vert its o!n ulti%ate and legiti%ate o'7ective !hich is the goal of all rules ofprocedure - that is# to achieve su'stantial 7ustice as epeditiousl& as possi'le.a!suits unlie duels are

not to 'e !on '& a rapier:s thrust. Technicalit !hen it deserts its proper office as an aid to 7ustice and

'eco%es its great hindrance and chief ene% deserves scant consideration fro% courts. >itigations %ust

'e decided on their %erits and not on technicalit&. Kver& part& litigant %ust 'e afforded the a%plest

opportunit& for the proper and 7ust deter%ination of his cause# free fro% the unaccepta'le plea of

technicalities. Thus# dis%issal of appeals purel& on technical grounds is fro!ned upon !here the polic& of

the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their %erits and the rules of procedure ought not to 'e

applied in a ver& rigid# technical sense( rules of procedure are used onl& to help secure# not override

su'stantial 7ustice. 't is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to ecuse a

technical lapse and afford the parties a revie+ of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice

rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a

false impression of speedy disposal of cases +hile actually resulting in more delay, if not a

miscarriage of justice.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

45/176

that technicalit& should not 'e allo!ed to stand in the !a& of e?uita'l& and co%pletel& resolving the

e?uit& and o'ligations of the parties to a la'or case.

)ndeed# !here a decision %a& 'e %ade to rest on infor%ed 7udg%ent rather than rigid rules# the e?uities of

the case %ust 'e accorded their due !eight 'ecause la'or deter%inations should not onl& 'e secundum

rationem'ut alsosecundum caritatem.

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

46/176

understand that %& contract is unco%pleted and ) full& understand the conse?uences of that. ) do ho!ever

pro%ise to !or to full for 'oth co%panies 'efore %& departure.

) realise ,sic that ) %a& 'e dis%issed '& the captain or Purser of %& assigned vessel# if ) a% suspected of

%isconduct in the re%aining !ees of %& e%plo&%ent# until %& departure# and ) understand that ) !ill

co%pansate ,sic 'oth co%panies for the results fro% ,sic %& actions.

) sign to sa& that ) !ill follo! the instructions of Captain 0. Sanchez upon %& arrival in the Philippines

and that an& previous arrange%ents to this date are nul ,sic and void.

) recognise ,sic that ) have 'een fairl& treated '& 'oth co%panies and for this ) !ill not 7eopardise ,sic

the% upon %& arrival in the Philippines.

) acno!ledge and accept this as evidence for ,sic %& departure to 'e sho!n to the P.+.K.0. in the

Philippines.41

!hich !ere all prepared '& petitioner /err& Casinos >i%ited# are su'stantiall& si%ilarl& !orded and of

the sa%e tenor. 0 thorough scrutin& of the purported resignation letters reveals the true nature of these

docu%ents. )n realit the& are !aivers or ?uitclai%s !hich are not sufficient to sho! valid separation

fro% !or or 'ar respondents fro% assailing their ter%ination. The 'urden of proving that ?uitclai%s

!ere voluntaril& entered into falls upon the e%plo&er.4; Deeds of release or ?uitclai% cannot 'ar

e%plo&ees fro% de%anding 'enefits to !hich the& are legall& entitled or fro% contesting the legalit& of

their dis%issal.4

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

47/176

This is a petition for revie! on certiorari seeing to set aside the resolutions of the respondent Court of

0ppeals datedA ,a Septe%'er

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

48/176

ot satisfied# the petitioner appealed to the respondent court. The appeal !as opposed '& the respondent

PC)2 in a %otion to dis%iss the appeal# on the ground that the record on appeal did not disclose data

sho!ing that the appeal !as perfected on ti%e. )n opposition to the respondent:s %otion to dis%iss# the

petitioner Carlos Di%a&uga insisted that the appeal !as perfected on ti%e. +n Septe%'er

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

49/176

)n fine# the appeal interposed '& the petitioner fro% the decision of the trial court should 'e given due

course. =o!ever# to re%and the case to the Court of 0ppeals !ould onl& dela& the final disposition of this

case. +n the other hand# this Court has consistentl& ruled that re%and of a case to a lo!er court for the

reception of evidence is not necessar& !here the Supre%e Court could resolve the dispute alread& 'ased

on the records 'efore it ,uisu%'ing v. C.0.# 1;; SCR0 684 15i?uidators vs. Yulueta#113 SCR0 345 15;( *elasco v. C.0.# 53 SCR0 916 158. 0 case involving an interlocutor& order

!hich !ould have 'een referred to the Court of 0ppeals !as decided '& the Supre%e Court if onl& to

%ae up for ti%e lost ,Sacdalan v. 2autista# 39 SCR0 169 1564. /inall in vie! of the long pendenc&

of a case# this Court finds that the greater interest of 7ustice de%ands that the case should 'e disposed on

the %erits at this stage ... >i%pan )nvest%ent Corporation v. Sundia%# 136 SCR0 ;85 15.

/ro% the evidence presented# there can 'e no dispute that Carlos Di%a&uga 'ound hi%self 7ointl& and

severall& !ith Pedro C. Tan7uatco# no! deceased# to pa& the o'ligation !ith PC)2 in the a%ount of

P18#888.88 plus 18W interest per annu%. )n addition# as a'ove stated# in case of non-pa&%ent# the&

undertoo a%ong others to 7ointl& and severall& authorize respondent 'an# at its option to appl& to the

pa&%ent of this note# an& and all funds# securities# real or personal properties# etc. 'elonging to an&one or

all of the%. +ther!ise stated# the pro%issor& note in ?uestion provides in un%istaa'le language that the

o'ligation of petitioner Di%a&uga is 7oint and several !ith Pedro C. Tan7uatco.

)t is the position of the petitioner that Pedro Tan7uatco having died on Dece%'er ;

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

50/176

2efore us is a petition for revie! on certiorariof the Decision of the Court of 0ppeals pro%ulgated on

0pril and(

Kast -- Pu'lic >and(

South -- Psu-86-889431 ,=eirs of 0lipio 2acalso(

@est -- Pu'lic >and and Propert& of /elicisi%o Rallon.

@ith an assessed value of S)U T=+"S0D ,P9#888 PKS+S.ands ,no! the >ands Manage%ent Services# Depart%ent

of Knviron%ent and atural Resources# Region *))# deferred action on the said plan.

4. Since the %onth of Januar& 1556# respondent MCDP placed and stationed so%e securit& guards in the

su'7ect propert there'& preventing hi% fro% entering and eercising his right of o!nership and

possession over the propert&.

3. Said unla!ful acts of respondents !ill not onl& cause irrepara'le in7ur& 'ut !ill also !or in7ustice to

hi%# and co%plicate# aggravate and %ultipl& the issues in this case.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/149627.htm#_ftn1http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/%5Chhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/%5Chhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/149627.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/149627.htm#_ftn1http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/%5Chhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/149627.htm#_ftn3

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

51/176

Petitioner pra&ed that pending hearing of the case on the %erits# and after the parties shall have 'een

heard# the court issue a !rit of preli%inar& in7unction# directing the respondents to desist and refrain fro%

conducting an& earth!or# introducing an& i%prove%ent# or placing an& guard on the propert&.

Thereafter# petitioner pra&ed that 7udg%ent 'e rendered ,1 declaring hi% as the true and la!ful o!ner of

the su'7ect propert&( ,; ordering the respondents and all persons acting in their 'ehalf# control ordirection# andQor !ho derived their right of possession fro% the respondents# to vacate the su'7ect

propert&( ,and Classification Map o. ;;;# Pro7ect o. 3# Certified on ove%'er ;8# 151;#

the propert& in litigation ,>ot o. PS"-86-889438# situated at 2aranga& )na&a!an# Pardo# Ce'u Cit& had

long 'een classified as aliena'le and disposa'le land(

,; That the said lot is a portion of a parcel of land originall& o!ned '& 0lipio +. 2acalso# !hose

possession of the sa%e co%%enced !a& 'ac in 159;# as evidenced '& a ta declaration issued in his

na%e(

,

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

52/176

,9 That for %ore than thirt& ,

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

53/176

S+ +RDKRKD.

Petitioner filed a %otion for reconsideration# !hich !as denied '& the trial court for 'eing un%eritorious.

16

Petitioner thereafter appealed to the Court of 0ppeals alleging that ,1 the trial court erred in dis%issing

Civil Case o. Ce'-15558 !ithout conducting a hearing of the case on the %erits( and ,; the trial court

acted !ith grave a'use of discretion and denied hi% due process !hen it denied his %otion for

reconsideration of the order of dis%issal.1

+n 0pril

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

54/176

). T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD RK*KRS)2>K KRR+R ) 0//)RM) T=K

RK)+0> TR)0> C+"RT +/ CK2" C)TO ,2R0C= 1; R0T) T=K M+T)+ T+

D)SM)SS + T=K R+"D +/ + C0"SK +/ 0CT)+.

)). T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD RK*KRS)2>K KRR+R ) /0)>) T+ RKC+)YK

PKT)T)+KRS C+ST)T"T)+0> R)=T T+ PR+PKRTO @)T=+"T D"K PR+CKSS 0D J"ST

C+MPKS0T)+.

))). T=K C+"RT +/ 0PPK0>S C+MM)TTKD RK*KRS)2>K KRR+R ) /0)>) T+ RKC+)YK

PKT)T)+KRS C+ST)T"T)+0> R)=T T+ D"K PR+CKSS 2O +T 0>>+@) T=K >0TTKR

T+ PRKSKT =)S K*)DKCK-)-C=)K/ ) 0 TR)0> + T=K MKR)TS 2O RKM0D) T=K

)ST0T C0SK T+ T=K RK)+0> TR)0> C+"RT /+R /"RT=KR PR+CKKD). ;

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

55/176

/ro% the allegations in the Co%plaint# petitioner clai%s o!nership of the su'7ect propert& for having

possessed it in the concept of an o!ner openl adversel peacefull& and eclusivel& for %ore than

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

56/176

@e cannot su'scri'e to the vie! of petitioner that it is onl& after a possessor has 'een issued a certificate

of title that the land can 'e considered private land. )n interpreting the provisions of Section 4 ,' of

Co%%on!ealth 0ct o. 141# this Court said in =erico vs. Dar# . . . !hen the conditions as specified in

the foregoing provision are co%plied !ith# the possessor is dee%ed to have ac?uired# '& operation of la!#

a right to a grant# a govern%ent grant# !ithout the necessit& of a certificate of title 'eing issued. The land#therefore# ceases to 'e of the pu'lic do%ain# and 'e&ond the authorit& of the Director of >ands to dispose

of. The application for confir%ation is a %ere for%alit the lac of !hich does not affect the legal

sufficienc& of the title as !ould 'e evidenced '& the patent and the Torrens title to 'e issued upon the

strength of said patent.

)n Su'i v. (a'on and Director of Lands#

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

57/176

Considering appellants allegation in his +pposition that his predecessor-in-interest# 0lipio +. 2acalso#

necessaril& the first and earliest# in vie! of the !ords originall& o!ned# co%%enced possession of the

su'7ect propert& onl& in 159;# and his su'%ission of ta declarations# the earliest of !hich !as for the

&ear 159;#4;during the hearing on the application for a !rit of preli%inar& in7unction# petitioner cannot

'e presu%ed to have perfor%ed all the conditions essential to a overn%ent grant inas%uch as hispossession of the su'7ect propert& did not co%%ence since June 1;# 1543 or earlier# as re?uired '&

Section 4 ,' of Co%%on!ealth 0ct o. 141# as a%ended '& Presidential Decree o. 186>KR ,appellee corporation !ill pa& the 2"OKR ,appellant co%pan& the su% of

P;1#888.88 interest at 1W per %onth 'eginning Jul& 1# 1598 in %anner follo!ingA

a P1#388.88 per %onth# the sa%e to 'e pa&a'le at the rate of P638.88 ever& 13th da& of the %onth#

and P638.88 ever& >KR to the 2"OKR# in accordance !ith the ter%s and conditions

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/149627.htm#_ftn42https://www.facebook.com/andreo.zamorahttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/149627.htm#_ftn42https://www.facebook.com/andreo.zamora

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

58/176

hereina'ove specified# and until the a%ount# including such other advances as the SK>>KR %a&

hereinafter receive shall have 'een full& paid(: ,0ppellant:s Record on 0ppeal# p. 6 .

)n said contract Khi'it 0# it further appears that as securit& for the o'ligation# appellee corporation and

Mauro 2. anzon %ortgaged in favor of appellant a vessel called 2at%an e >CT 1;;# descri'ed in

their contract as registered in the na%e of said Mauro 2. anzon( that the other appellee# Do%ingo 2.

Sanchez# stipulated that said %ortgage should 'e superior to another %ortgage previousl& constituted on

the vessel in his o!n favor( that appellee corporation undertoo to insure said vessel for at least

P

7/24/2019 49 Case Shit

59/176

;. Sentencing defendants 7ointl& and