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
 

   
March-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 51765 March 3, 1997 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93397 March 3, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99425 March 3, 1997 - ANTONIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100487 & 100607 March 3, 1997 - ARTURO JULIANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106581 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110419 March 3, 1997 - UERM-MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114383 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL COREA

  • G.R. No. 116437 March 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO ANDAN

  • G.R. No. 117161 March 3, 1997 - RAMON INGLES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120704 March 3, 1997 - BARTOLOME C. CARALE, ET AL. v. PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123321 March 3, 1997 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123361 March 3, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125198 March 3, 1997 - MSCI-NACUSIP v. NWPC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84449 March 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO JAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102876 March 4, 1997 - BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENG’G CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118607 March 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO FRANCO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 March 5, 1997 - INOCENCIO BASCO v. LEO H. RAPATALO

  • G.R. No. 126576 March 5, 1997 - RICARDO M. ANGOBUNG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83598 March 7, 1997 - LEONCIA BALOGBOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94994-95 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LILIBETH CACO

  • G.R. No. 106212 March 7, 1997 - PROGRESS HOMES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108395 March 7, 1997 - HEIRS OF TEODORO GUARING, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108604-10 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO A. BURCE

  • G.R. No. 113420 March 7, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113905 March 7, 1997 - LEOPOLDO ALICBUSAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116211 March 7, 1997 - MEYNARDO POLICARPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116512 March 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM O. CASIDO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1353 March 11, 1997 - DANILO B. PARADA v. LORENZO B. VENERACION

  • G.R. No. 127066 March 11, 1997 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117169 March 12, 1997 - PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121917 March 12, 1997 - ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343 March 13, 1997 - VICTOR KIERULF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100333 March 13, 1997 - HILARIO MAGCALAS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103611 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR HERBIETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107131 March 13, 1997 - NFD INT’L. MANNING AGENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108454 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEDDY QUINAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109779 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MAÑOZCA

  • G.R. No. 110067 March 13, 1997 - LINDA T. ALMENDRAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111478 March 13, 1997 - GEORGE F. SALONGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111567 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO AVILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997 - SERGIO NAGUIAT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116228 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO GAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116352 March 13, 1997 - J. & D.O. AGUILAR CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116596-98 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO TOPAGUEN

  • G.R. No. 117266 March 13, 1997 - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VENTURA O. DUCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117955-58 March 13, 1997 - HERMINIGILDO TOMARONG, ET AL. v. ANTONIO C. LUBGUBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119058 March 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA VILLARAN

  • G.R. No. 120853 March 13, 1997 - RUDY ALMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122427 March 13, 1997 - BENJAMIN LAZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123881 March 13, 1997 - VIVA PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91694 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS CALVO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97626 March 14, 1997 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMERCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114387 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DEVILLERES

  • G.R. No. 120592 March 14, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121765 March 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDOLF B. MONTEALTO

  • G.R. No. 122646 March 14, 1997 - ADELIA C. MENDOZA v. ANGELITO C. TEH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112229 March 18, 1997 - RAYMOND PE LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114924-27 March 18, 1997 - DANTE NACURAY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119321 March 18, 1997 - CATALINO F. BAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 712 March 19, 1997 - PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH

  • G.R. Nos. 100382-100385 March 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TABACO

  • G.R. No. 111157 March 19, 1997 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117029 March 19, 1997 - PELTAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121112 March 19, 1997 - FELICIDAD MIRANO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1159 March 20, 1997 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. WILLIAM C. SEVILLO

  • G.R. No. 88684 March 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LACBANES

  • G.R. No. 95551 March 20, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CONCEPCION S. ALARCON VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107019 March 20, 1997 - FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116404 March 20, 1997 - FRANCISCO LUNA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117218 March 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY NALANGAN

  • G.R. No. 119599 March 20, 1997 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127456 March 20, 1997 - JESUS A. JARIOL, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1091 March 21, 1997 - WILFREDO NAVARRO v. DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 107699 March 21, 1997 - ALEX JACOBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116692 March 21, 1997 - SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117097 March 21, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG OPTOMETRISTS SA PILIPINAS, ET AL. v. ACEBEDO INTL. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118436 March 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF MANUEL A. ROXAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118836 March 21, 1997 - FEDERICO DORDAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122728 March 21, 1997 - CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO, JR. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123037 March 21, 1997 - TEODORO Q. PEÑA v. HRET, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1184 March 24, 1997 - NBI, ET AL. v. RODOLFO TULIAO

  • G.R. No. 106588 March 24, 1997 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-89-318 March 25, 1997 - LUCIANA Vda. DE ARAGO v. PATERNO T. ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 96229 March 25, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIOSA S. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 124137 March 25, 1997 - ROY M. LOYOLA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126298 March 25, 1997 - PATRIA C. GUTIERREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99032 March 26, 1997 - RICARDO A. LLAMADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101817 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE IMMACULATA

  • G.R. No. 107801 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIA V. IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 110613 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 113470 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CORBES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115951 March 26, 1997 - ZEBRA SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117378 March 26, 1997 - GIL CAPILI, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117408 March 26, 1997 - NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEV. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117604 March 26, 1997 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118332 March 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121031 March 26, 1997 - ROSAURO I. TORRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122013 March 26, 1997 - JOSE C. RAMIREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124333 March 26, 1997 - NATIVIDAD P. ARAGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119877 March 31, 1997 - BIENVENIDO ONGKINGCO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 124333   March 26, 1997 - NATIVIDAD P. ARAGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 124333. March 26, 1997.]

    NATIVIDAD P. ARAGON, as represented by her Attorney-in-fact, MODESTO O. ARAGON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and the MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents.

    Ricardo J.M. Rivera Law Office for Petitioner.

    Yngson & Associates for Private Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129; EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OVER ALL FINAL DECISIONS AND ORDERS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; CONSTRUED. — Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, vests in the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final decisions and orders of the Regional Trial Court. However, the aforestated provision of the said law only refers to cases appealed to it from the Regional Trial Court from which the case originated. Like any other court, it is necessary that the Court of Appeals must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, the issues and the res before it can validly decide any case submitted to it. Hence, it cannot acquire appellate jurisdiction over any case not property brought to it by the parties concerned.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; THE COURT OF APPEALS CLEARLY COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT DECLARED NULL AND VOID THE PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-89-1797 AS IT WAS NOT THE CASE APPEALED BEFORE IT. — This is what happened in the case at bench. What was on appeal before the Court of Appeals was the decision rendered in Civil Case No. Q-91-10200 where the parties are petitioner herein and respondent MBC. However, the said court, in deciding the issues raised in the aforesaid case, took cognizance of Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 where the parties were different i.e. petitioner and MARENIR. Furthermore, said case was not appealed before the Court of Appeals nor was there any action commenced to annul the judgment of the court a quo. Hence, the decision over that case became final and executory. Respondent court clearly committed an error when it declared as null and void the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 as it was not the case appealed before it. Even if MARENIR itself, the losing party to the aforementioned case decides now to appeal the decision or to file any other proceeding seeking its nullification, it cannot at this very late stage do so. This is in consonance with the legal tenet that failure to perfect an appeal renders the trial court’s judgment final and executory and it can no longer be subject to review. As such, any modification of that judgment by the appellate court cannot be upheld.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ESTOPPEL BY LACHES BARRED THE ATTACK ON THE COURT A QUO’S JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-89-1797. — We agree with petitioner’s asseveration that assuming that the respondent court had jurisdiction to nullify the proceedings of a case which was not before it on appeal, estoppel by laches barred the attack on the court a quo’s jurisdiction in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797. As correctly pointed out by petitioner in her petition, MARENIR in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 never questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court. Not even in its answer to the complaint, nor in any subsequent pleading. In the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy respondent Surety company did question the jurisdiction of the trial court but it did so late on appeal. Even if we found that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case, we still ruled that the proceedings conducted therein was valid based on the doctrine of laches. We also defined laches as "failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it." We also ruled that: "The facts of this case that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolving." Indeed, the reason for the doctrine ion Tijam and the cases subsequent to it is ratiocinated by this Court as: ". . . the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but because such a practice cannot be tolerated for reason for public policy."cralaw virtua1aw library

    4. ID.; JURISDICTION; PRINCIPLE THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A CASE MAY BE OBJECTED TO AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS; IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT MEAN THAT LACK OF JURISDICTION OF A COURT IN A CASE MAY BE RAISED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS OF ANOTHER CASE, IN ANOTHER COURT AND EVEN BY ANYBODY AT ALL. — Although we agree with private respondent’s contention that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case may be objected to at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal, this particular rule, however, means that jurisdictional issues in a case can be raised only during the proceedings in said case and during the appeal of said case. It certainly does not mean that lack of jurisdiction of a court in a case may be raised during the proceedings of another case, in another court and even by anybody at all. Certainly, we cannot countenance this procedure as this will lead to absurdity and is against the basic principle of jurisdiction.


    D E C I S I O N


    HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:


    Petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 46691 which reversed the Decision dated January 31, 1994 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch CIII, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-91-10200.

    The antecedent facts are undisputed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The MARENIR Development Corporation (MARENIR for brevity) obtained a P4,000,000.00 loan from the Manila Banking Corporation (MBC for brevity) and executed in the latter’s favor a real estate mortgage over its subdivision lots with Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 271128, 271129, 271130, 271131 and 271132. The real estate mortgage was annotated in all the aforementioned titles. Subsequently, MARENIR’s mortgage loan was increased to P4,560,000.00.

    On April 27, 1982, MARENIR sold to petitioner the lot covered by TCT No. 271131, denominated as Lot 23, Blk. 5, with an area of 368 sq. meters and situated in Bo. Bagbag, Quezon City. The agreed purchase price is P132,480.00 with P20,000.00 as downpayment and the P112,480.00 balance to be paid on a monthly installment of P1,745.00.

    Petitioner, later on, was able to complete the payment of the purchase price to MARENIR but the latter was unable to transfer TCT No. 271131 in petitioner’s name.

    On February 14, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against MARENIR in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 99, Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-1797. In that complaint, petitioner prayed that a judgment be rendered ordering MARENIR to execute a deed of absolute sale in her favor and for MARENIR to redeem the property free from encumbrances from MBC.

    On September 21, 1989, the court a quo rendered a decision, 2 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, . . . judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of plaintiff covering the property in question and to deliver the owner’s copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 271131 of the land records of Quezon City and actual physical possession thereof to plaintiff, and to pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees . . ." 3

    There being no appeal on the part of MARENIR, petitioner on July 25, 1990, filed a "Motion to Direct Branch Clerk of Court or Deputy Sheriff to Execute Absolute Deed of Sale" which was granted by the trial court. Subsequently, the branch clerk of court executed for and in behalf of MARENIR, a Deed of Absolute Sale, in favor of petitioner. 4

    However, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, refused to register the deed unless the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 271131 is presented. Since the owner’s duplicate of title was in the possession of MBC, petitioner requested the former to release the said TCT. MBC, through its statutory receiver agreed to release the TCT provided petitioner will pay it the corresponding value in the amount of P185,020.52. Petitioner refused to pay the said amount for the following reasons, viz: (a) that she had paid the total purchase price plus interest in the amount of P59,686.84, or a total of P192,166.22; and (b) that to require her to pay another P185,020.52 would be making her pay for the lot the second time.

    When the statutory receiver still refused to release the TCT, petitioner was left with no other recourse but to file a complaint for Delivery of Title and Damages against MBC before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-10200.

    On January 31, 1994, the aforementioned court 5 rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Natividad G. Aragon represented by her Attorney-in-fact Modesto O. Aragon as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Ordering the defendant Manila Banking Corporation and/or whoever its present conservator/liquidator . . ., to physically and actually deliver the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 271131, or if said title had been cancelled, to deliver the present owner’s duplicate copy covering the lot involved in this case . . . to the plaintiff Natividad G. Aragon and/or her attorney-in-fact Modesto O. Aragon, within five (5) days from finality of this decision;

    2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to transfer TCT No. 271131 in the name of Marenir Development Corporation, . . ., in the name of herein plaintiff Natividad G. Aragon, . . . without having to require the surrender of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT 271131 or its successor title should Manila Bank Corporation and/or its Central Bank conservator/liquidator refuse or fail to voluntarily surrender the title in question;

    x       x       x" 6

    Aggrieved with the decision of the said court in Civil Case No. Q-91-10200, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent by reversing the decision of the court a quo and ordering the dismissal of the complaint. It ratiocinated that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The complaint of appellee ARAGON for Specific Performance and Damages 7 against MARENIR should have been filed with the HLURB [Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board]. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City was without jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint.

    x       x       x


    . . ., the decision penned by Judge De Guzman was null and void, having been rendered without jurisdiction and may be struck down anytime even on appeal to the Supreme Court. A void judgment cannot acquire finality; it is non-existent. It is in legal effect no judgment or order at all. And so was its Order to the Branch Clerk of Court to execute the deed of absolute sale in favor of ARAGON. It follows that the deed of absolute sale executed by the Branch Clerk of Court was also null and void.

    There being no decision upon which the challenged decision is based, no deed of absolute sale in favor of ARAGON, the latter has no cause of action against appellant BANK.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    x       x       x


    There being no established right of ARAGON because of nullity of the decision of Judge De Guzman, there is no obligation on the part of the BANK to respect or not to violate such right; and the refusal of the BANK to release TCT No. 271131 is not an act or omission violative of ARAGON’s right." 8

    Hence, this petition.

    Petitioner assigns the following as errors of the Court of Appeals:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I


    "IT WAS THE RESPONDENT COURT WHICH HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DECLARE THE NULLITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-89-1797

    II


    ASSUMING THE RESPONDENT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO NULLIFY THE PROCEEDINGS OF A CASE WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE IT ON APPEAL, ESTOPPEL BY LACHES BARRED THE ATTACK ON THE TRIAL COURT’S JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-89-1797." 9

    The petition is meritorious.

    Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, vests in the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final decisions and orders of the Regional Trial Court. 10 However, the aforestated provision of the said law only refers to cases appealed to it from the Regional Trial Court from which the case originated. Like any other court, it is necessary that the Court of Appeals must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, the issues and the res before it can validly decide any case submitted to it. 11 Hence, it cannot acquire appellate jurisdiction over any case not properly brought to it by the parties concerned.

    This is what happened in the case at bench. What was on appeal before the Court of Appeals was the decision rendered in Civil Case No. Q-91-10200 where the parties are petitioner herein and respondent MBC. However, the said court, in deciding the issues raised in the aforesaid case, took cognizance of Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 where the parties were different i.e. petitioner and MARENIR. Furthermore, said case was not appealed before the Court of Appeals nor was there any action commenced to annul the judgment of the court a quo. Hence, the decision over that case became final and executory. Respondent court clearly committed an error when it declared as null and void the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 as it was not the case appealed before it. Even if MARENIR itself, the losing party to the aforementioned case decides now to appeal the decision or to file any other proceeding seeking its nullification, it cannot at this very late stage do so. This is in consonance with the legal tenet that failure to perfect an appeal renders the trial court’s judgment final and executory and it can no longer be subject to review. As such, any modification of that judgment by the appellate court cannot be upheld. 12

    Anent the second assigned error, we agree with petitioner’s asseveration that assuming that the respondent court had jurisdiction to nullify the proceedings of a case which was not before it on appeal, estoppel by laches barred the attack on the court a quo’s jurisdiction in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797. As correctly pointed out by petitioner in her petition, 13 MARENIR in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 never questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court. Not even in its answer to the complaint, nor in any subsequent pleading.

    In the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 14 respondent Surety company did question the jurisdiction of the trial court but it did so late on appeal. Even if we found that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case, we still ruled that the proceedings conducted therein was valid based on the doctrine of laches. We also defined laches as "failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it." 15 We also ruled that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The facts of this case that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Indeed, the reason for the doctrine in Tijam and the cases subsequent to it is ratiocinated by this Court as:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but because such a practice cannot be tolerated for reasons for public policy." 16

    Although we agree with private respondent’s contention that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case may be objected to at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal, this particular rule, however, means that jurisdictional issues in a case can be raised only during the proceedings in said case and during the appeal of said case. It certainly does not mean that lack of jurisdiction of a court in a case may be raised during the proceedings of another case, in another court and even by anybody at all. Certainly, we cannot countenance this procedure as this will lead to absurdity and is against the basic principle of jurisdiction.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated January 31, 1994 is REINSTATED, with costs against private respondents.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    VITUG, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The ponencia recognizes, to which I concur, the finality and non-assailability of the decision in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 where petitioner’s right to have the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 271131 registered in her name by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale made between MARENIR and petitioner has been upheld. I take it, of course, that such sale of the property and the corresponding transfer of title is without prejudice to outstanding encumbrances theretofore duly registered and annotated in TCT No. 271131.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Justice Antonio P. Solano and concurred in by Justices Emeterio C. Cui and Ricardo P. Galvez.

    2. Penned by Judge Felix M. de Guzman.

    3. Rollo, p. 132.

    4. Id., at 133-134.

    5. Penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.

    6. Rollo, pp. 109-110.

    7. Civil Case No. Q-89-1797.

    8. Id., at 39-40

    9. Id., at 17.

    10. Tropical Homes, Inc. v. National Housing Authority, 152 SCRA 540 [1987]; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 51 [1991].

    11. Philippine Courts and their Jurisdiction, Quiason, 1993 ed., p. 7.

    12. Amarante v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 104 [1994]; Tuzon v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 739 [1992]; Carbonel v. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 565 [1986]; Malia v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 138 SCRA 116 [1985].

    13. Rollo, p. 21.

    14. 23 SCRA 29 [1968].

    15. Supra.

    16. La Campana Food Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 151 [1993]; Ocheda v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 629 [1992]; Salem v. Dinglasan, 198 SCRA 623 [1991]; Abalos v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 586 [1991]; F. David Enterprise v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 191 SCRA 516.

    G.R. No. 124333   March 26, 1997 - NATIVIDAD P. ARAGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.




    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