ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48348 November 1, 1941 - AQUINO DEL ROSARIO v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 48524 November 1, 1941 - MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 48662 November 6, 1941 - JESUS B. LAVA v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL.

    073 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 48306 November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 48415 November 7, 1941 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 48458 November 7, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 48683 November 8, 1941 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING

    073 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 48183 November 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, ET AL.

    073 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 48456 November 12, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. NGO CHAY

    073 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 47813 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIMEON ANTONIO

    073 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 48320 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JUAN CACHERO

    073 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 48459 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47805 November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 48101 November 22, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE NABORA

    073 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 48123 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANACLETO VINEDA

    073 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 48395 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ALEJANDRO ENCARNACION

    073 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 48554 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BILAANS S. SUNI

    073 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47688 November 24, 1941 - BASILIA CABRERA v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC.

    073 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47988 November 24, 1941 - H. S. FENWICK v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA

    073 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 48641 November 24, 1941 - PEDRO GALLEGO v. VICENTE VERRA

    073 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 47887 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CARMEN DE UMALI

    073 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 48125 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX CABADDU

    073 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 47357 November 26, 1941 - SALVADOR E. IMPERIAL v. CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 47775 November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA

    073 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 47976 November 26, 1941 - A. P. SEVA Y OTROS v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    073 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 48215 November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 48754 November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ

    073 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 47804 November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 48147 November 27, 1941 - CLARO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO REYES

    073 Phil 492

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47805   November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 431

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 47805. November 19, 1941.]

    CONCEPCION PIÑON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL., Defendants. BRAULIO LUBUGUIN, JULIAN SANTAMINA and CRISPINA ARROYO, Defendants-Appellants.

    Damaceno Santos, for the Appellee.

    Aurelio Palileo, for the appellants.

    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS; JURISDICTION OVER PERSON AND SUBJECT MATTER; VALIDITY OF DECISION. — The amount of the loan sought to be recovered was within the jurisdiction of the court, and by the filing of the complaint by the plaintiff and by the service of summons upon the defendants the court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of both parties. Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over the persons of the parties, it has authority to try and decide the case, and its decision is valid regardless of whether or not it is erroneous. And where a valid decision has become final because no appeal has been taken therefrom within the reglementary period, the same with all its errors becomes binding and may validly be executed.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    On December 22, 1932, plaintiff Concepcion Piñon instituted against defendants Julian Santamina, Crispina Arroyo and Gonzalo Cawil an ordinary civil action for the recovery of a loan of P1,000 which was docketed as civil case No. 43432 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. This loan was secured by a mortgage on several parcels of land which was executed by Cawil as attorney-in-fact of the spouses Julian Santamina and Crispina Arroyo. On default of the defendants, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff and a writ of execution was levied on five parcels of land covered by certificates of title Nos. 2283, 2427, 2429, 2474 and 2479. Those parcels were, at public auction, awarded to plaintiff as the highest bidder and no redemption having been effected within the statutory period, the provincial sheriff of Laguna executed an absolute deed of sale thereof in her favor. Plaintiff thereafter sought registration of this deed with the register of deeds but it was refused for her failure to deliver the certificates of title, which then were in the possession of the defendants. Plaintiff thereupon sought an order from the Court of First Instance of Laguna to compel defendants to deliver the certificates to the register of deeds and on denial of her petition, she instituted the present action to recover possession of the lands in question. From a judgment in her favor, defendants took the present appeal.

    Appellants contend that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in civil case No. 43432 for recovery of a loan is null and void for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over the persons of the defendants therein. The alleged want of jurisdiction rests upon the theory that the power of attorney executed by Julian Santamina and Crispina Arroyo in favor of Gonzalo Cawil by which the latter was authorized to mortgage or sell with the right of repurchase the lands in question does not carry with it authority to borrow money; and that as a matter of fact such power of attorney had been revoked prior to the taking of the loan. Both of these pretensions are frivolous. Whether Gonzalo Cawil had or had no authority to borrow from the plaintiff the sum of P1,000 in virtue of his power of attorney or whether that power of attorney was still good at the time of the transaction, is a matter of defense which the defendants Julian Santamina and Crispina Arroyo had every opportunity to present in civil case No. 43432 for recovery of the loan, and can, in no sense, affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter and over the persons of the defendants therein. The amount of the loan sought to be recovered was within the jurisdiction of the court, and by the filing of the complaint by the plaintiff and by the service of summons upon the defendants the court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of both parties. Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over the persons of the parties, it has authority to try and decide the case, and its decision is valid regardless of whether or not it is erroneous. And where a valid decision has become final because no appeal has been taken therefrom within the reglementary period, the same with all its errors becomes binding and may validly be executed.

    Judgment is affirmed, and as the instant appeal is manifestly frivolous, double costs are hereby charged against counsel for the appellants.

    Abad Santos, Diaz, Horrilleno and Ozaeta, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47805   November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 431


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED