March 1976 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1976 > March 1976 Decisions > G.R. No. L-39581 March 31, 1976 - CARLOS EUSEBIO v. MERCEDES B. EUSEBIO, ET AL.:

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-39581. March 31, 1976.]

CARLOS EUSEBIO, Petitioner, v. MERCEDES B. EUSEBIO and JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF QUEZON CITY, Respondents.

Raymundo N. Beltran for Petitioner.

Semaco P. Sacmac for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner filed with the JDRC of Quezon City a petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal properties. Even before respondent could be served with summons, just because neither petitioner nor respondent was a resident of Quezon City, the said Court dismissed the petition, and thereafter denied the motion for reconsideration of said dismissal.

Upon review, the Supreme Court held that under the circumstances prevailing, the residence of plaintiff and defendant are of no moment and that the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the case.

Questioned orders set aside.

SYLLABUS

1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES; INSTANT CASE. — Respondent Court acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff the moment the latter filed his petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal properties before the respondent Court. Respondent Court could have acquired jurisdiction over private respondent either by her voluntary appearance in court and her submission to its authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exercised over her person.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RESPONDENT COURT GUILTY OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it dismissed motu propio the petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal property before private respondent was summoned, on the lone flimsy ground that plaintiff and defendant are not residents of Quezon City and hence the Court did not have jurisdiction over them. The respondent Court simply overlooked the fundamental nature of jurisdiction and its various categories, such as jurisdiction over subject matter, jurisdiction over the parties and jurisdiction over the issues raised before it, as well as the distinctions between jurisdiction and venue.

3. ACTIONS; VENUE; MAY BE CONFERRED BY THE PARTIES. — It is fundamental in the law concerning jurisdiction and venue that venue, which is the place where the case is to be heard or tried, and which is a matter of relation between plaintiff and defendant, may be conferred by the parties and objections thereto may be waived by them unless venue and jurisdiction happen to coincide.

D E C I S I O N

ESGUERRA, J.:

Petition for review on certiorari of the orders dated August 16, 1974, and October 16, 1974, of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City issued in its Civil Case No. QE-00807, entitled "Carlos V. Eusebio v. Mercedes B. Eusebio, for judicial authorization to sell conjugal properties." The two orders are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Order

"It appears from the petition that neither petitioner nor respondent is a resident of Quezon City; hence, this Court has no jurisdiction over them.

"Wherefore, let the petition be as it is hereby ordered Dismissed.

"So Ordered.

"Quezon City, Philippines, August 16, 1974."

"Order

"For lack of merit, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration dated September 15, 1974 is hereby Denied.

"So Ordered.

"Quezon City, Philippines, October 16, 1974."

Petitioner claims, and this is the lone vital issue, that the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing motu proprio. Civil Case No. QE-00807, even before private respondent Mercedes B. Eusebio could be served with summons, just because neither petitioner nor respondent is a resident of Quezon City and, hence, said court has no jurisdiction over them.

Petitioner firmly anchors his contention on the argument that the respondent Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal properties because under Section 29-A, No. 4, of Republic Act No. 4836, creating the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, proceedings brought under the provisions of Title 6 and 7 of the Civil Code are within the exclusive jurisdiction of said Court and the petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal properties is authorized by Art. 166 of the Civil Code which is found in Chapter IV, Title 6 of said Code. Petitioner correctly argues that venue is properly laid because the conjugal properties sought to be alienated are located in Quezon City. Under Rule 4, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, all actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession or for partition and condemnation or foreclosure of real properties or any part thereof shall be commenced and tried where the properties or any portion thereof lies.

As to the respondent court’s acquisition of jurisdiction (authority to hear and determine a cause) over the parties in a civil case, We have no doubt that it acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff (petitioner in this case) the moment he filed his petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal properties before the respondent Court (Manila Railroad Co. v. Atty. General 20 Phil. 523). Respondent Court could have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant (private respondent) either by her voluntary appearance in court and her submission to its authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exercised over her person (Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921).

We are in full accord with petitioner’s contention that under the circumstances prevailing in this case, the residence of plaintiff and defendant are of no moment and they become an issue of venue and not jurisdiction. It is fundamental in the law concerning jurisdiction and venue that venue, which is the place where the case is to be heard or tried, and which is a matter of relation between plaintiff and defendant, may be conferred by the parties, and objections thereto may be waived by them unless venue and jurisdiction happen to coincide.

The issues raised herein by private respondent in his answer dated September 19, 1975, and those in the petitioner’s reply dated October 18, 1975, as well as the former’s rejoinder of November 21, 1975, relating to the merits of the principal case filed with respondent Court, which are totally foreign to the question of whether or not respondent Court committed gross abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal property, should be properly raised before the respondent Court and not before this Court.

In the light of the foregoing, We cannot do otherwise than to conclude definitely that the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it dismissed motu proprio the petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal property before defendant (private respondent) was summoned, on the lone flimsy ground that plaintiff and defendant are not residents of Quezon City and hence the Court did not have jurisdiction over them. The respondent Court simply overlooked the fundamental nature of jurisdiction and its various categories, such as jurisdiction over subject matter, jurisdiction over the parties and jurisdiction over the issues raised before it, as well as the distinctions between jurisdiction and venue.

WHEREFORE, the respondent Court’s orders dated August 16, 1974, and October 16, 1974, are hereby nullified and set aside, the petition in its Special Proceedings No. QE-00807 revived, and reinstated; and respondent Court is enjoined to proceed therein in accordance with law.

Costs against private Respondent.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main