Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > July 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21275 July 31, 1967 - ZAMBOANGA GENERAL UTILITIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21275. July 31, 1967.]

ZAMBOANGA GENERAL UTILITIES, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER COMPANY, INC., Respondents-Appellees.

Abelardo S. Fernandez, Ismael M. Rodriguez, Virginia M. Ramos and Timoteo de los Santos for Petitioner-Appellant.

Manuel O. Chan for Respondent-Appellee Goodrich International Rubber Company, Inc.

Solicitor General for Respondents-Appellees Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Et. Al.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; CIVIL REGISTER; CHANGES OR CORRECTION IN THE ENTRIES THEREOF; SETTLED RULE: SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS CANNOT BE AFFECTED WITHOUT PROPER JUDICIAL ORDER. — It has been the uniform jurisprudence of this Court since Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (1954) 94 Phil. 321, that substantial alterations, such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry Records, can not be ordered by the court unless first threshed out in an "appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented" (see Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court), and that the summary proceedings under Article 412 of the Civil Code only justify an order to correct innocuous or clerical errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CHANGE OF NAME AFFECTING STATUS AND CITIZENSHIP BY MERE CORRECTION OF AN ENTRY IN THE CIVIL REGISTER, NOT AVAILABLE; CASE AT BAR. — What is sought in the instant complaint involves not only a change of names, but likewise the status and citizenship not only of the minors whose birth certificates are also sought to be corrected, but also of their respective parents. While ostensibly, the action seeks a mere correction of an entry in the Civil Registry, in effect, it requests the judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship. Many such cases this Court has dismissed. We have clearly stated time and again, that declaratory relief is not available for the purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship.


D E C I S I O N


ANGELES, J.:


We are asked in this appeal to reverse the order of the Court of First Instance of Basilan City dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the petition for certiorari in Special Civil Case No. 63 of said court.

The facts are not disputed.

A protest was filed with the District Land Office of the Bureau of Lands at Zamboanga City by the Zamboanga General Utilities, Inc. against the Goodrich International Rubber Company, Inc., for the forcible occupation over, and encroachment into, a portion of public land which had already been applied for, occupied and improved by the former. After hearing, at which both parties were represented, the Director of Lands, on June 27, 1958, rendered a decision awarding the whole of Lot. No. 1, SWO-40126, the contested lot, to the Zamboanga General Utilities, Inc., and to the Goodrich International Rubber Company, Inc., three hundred eighty (380) hectares of said Lot 2. Feeling aggrieved, Zamboanga Utilities appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on the basic contention that it was entitled to the whole area of Lot No. 2. On February 26, 1959, the Secretary rendered a decision "concurring in the result" of the decision of the Director of Lands, and denied the appeal. Motion for reconsideration having been denied, the Zamboanga Utilities filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with this Court on March 22, 1960, but this was dismissed "without prejudice to filing an action, if any, in the Court of First Instance."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accordingly, on June 22, 1960, Zamboanga Utilities filed with the Court of First Instance of Basilan City a petition for "CERTIORARI" against the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Director of Lands, and Goodrich International Rubber Co., Inc. On July 28, 1960, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Director of Lands, through their respective counsels filed separate answers. On July 29, 1960, the Goodrich also filed, through counsel, its answer with counterclaim.

On September 26, 1960, the petitioner filed a petition for preliminary injunction, praying that the Director of Lands be enjoined from proceeding with the sale at public auction of a portion of public land including the contested area. On October 11, 1960, counsel for Goodrich filed opposition to the petition, and after due hearing, the court granted the petition for the issuance of the preliminary injunctive writ, upon petitioner’s filing a bond. On November 8, 1960, counsel for respondent Goodrich filed a motion for the dissolution of the writ on the ground that the averments in the petition are not sufficient to warrant its issuance. Despite opposition from the petitioner, and upon filing of a counterbond by movant Goodrich, the preliminary injunction was ordered dissolved.

On January 14, 1963, or about four months after the respondents had filed their answers, a joint motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari was filed by the respondents on the ground that the court "has no jurisdiction to render by writ of certiorari the decisions and acts of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Director of Lands performed outside the City of Basilan, pursuant to section 44 (h) of the Judiciary Act of 1948." The motion was granted, and the petition was dismissed on March 11, 1963, the lower court citing as authority the case of Samar Mining Co. v. Amado, G.R. No. L-17109, decided on June 30, 1961. From the order of dismissal, the petitioner elevated the case to Us for review.

In support of the contention that the order of dismissal was erroneous, the petitioner-appellant stresses on the untimeliness of the motion to dismiss, stating that venue had been waived since the motion was filed long after the respondents had filed responsive pleadings, that is, their answers to the petition for certiorari. Respondents-appellees, on the other hand, insist that the basis for the motion to dismiss was not improper venue but "lack of jurisdiction based on Section 44(h) of the Judiciary Act of 1948," which cannot be waived and may be interposed at any time of the proceedings. In other words, that the lower court has no authority to hear and determine the case.

The question of whether or not the Court of First Instance of Basilan has the power to "hear and determine the case," and to review the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Lands which would seem to be the main question posed herein — was raised and passed upon in Gayacao v. Executive Secretary, etc., Et Al., G.R. No. L-21066, April 30, 1965. This Court speaking through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, there said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The doctrine invoked in support of the theory of non- jurisdiction (Castaño v. Lobingier, 7 Phil. 91; Acosta v. Alvendia, 109 Phil. 1017; Samar Mining v. Amado, L-17109, June 30, 1961) are inapplicable, in that those cases involved petitions for writs of injunction seeking to control the actions of courts or officers outside the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent courts involved. Here the sole point in issue is whether the decision of the respondent public officers was legally correct or not, and, without going into the merits of the case, we see no cogent reason why this power of judicial review should be confined to the courts of first instance of the locality where the offices of respondents are maintained, to the exclusion of the courts of first instance in those localities where the plaintiffs reside, and where the questioned decisions are being enforced.

"It is easy to see that if the contested ruling of the court below is sustained the same would result not only in hardship to litigants of limited means, practically amounting to denial of access to the courts, but would also unnecessarily encumber the Manila courts whose dockets are already overburdened. Actually, since Ortua v. Singson, 59 Phil. 440, the power of provincial courts of first instance to review administrative decisions of national officials has been consistently recognized."cralaw virtua1aw library

In line with the principle laid down in this case, we hereby sustain the jurisdiction of the lower court over the petition for certiorari.

Of course, as stated in the above-quoted pronouncement, the rule is different in petitions for injunction which seek to control the actions of courts and officers. Jurisdiction or authority of Courts of First Instance to control or restrain acts by means of the writ of injunction is limited to acts which are being committed or about to be committed within the territorial boundaries of their respective provinces and districts (Acosta v. , Alvendia, supra; See also Alhambra Cigar, etc., Et. Al. v. National Administration of Regional Office No. 2, etc., Et Al., L-20491, August 31, 1966.) While there was in the case of bar a petition for writ of preliminary injunction filed sometime after the main petition had been instituted, the respondent officials, particularly the Director of Lands against whom the writ was directed, had failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to issue the writ. Only the respondent Goodrich objected to its issuance, but without raising the question of jurisdiction as a ground for its opposition. At any rate, since the writ had been dissolved upon motion and filing of counterbond by Goodrich, the main petition remains as one for mere "CERTIORARI," and the jurisdiction of the court in issuing the preliminary injunctive writ is no longer a question for determination.

Wherefore, the order complained of is hereby set aside with costs against the Goodrich International Rubber Company, Inc. Let the records of this case be remanded to the court below for further proceedings.

Reyes, J .B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on official leave of absence.

Castro, J., on leave, did not take part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23258 July 1, 1967 - ROBERTO R. MONROY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 July 10, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26237 July 10, 1967 - NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. ISTHMIAN LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24704 July 10, 1967 - AUYONG HIAN v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19535 July 10, 1967 - PIO MINDANAO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20086 July 10, 1967 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SEGUNDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24520 July 11, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 13, 1967 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25859 July 13, 1967 - FRANCISCO LOPEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24340-44 July 18, 1967 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21054 July 18, 1967 - IN RE: MIGUEL CHUN ENG GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19600 July 19, 1967 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23176 & L-23177 July 20, 1967 - PABLO R. TONGCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23229 July 20, 1967 - ANDRES P. BARING v. CESAR M. CABAHUG

  • G.R. No. L-25662 July 21, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21495 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO HALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22174 July 21, 1967 - ESPERANZA P. DE HARDEN v. FRED M. HARDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22356 July 21, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. PATANAO

  • G.R. No. L-23956 July 21, 1967 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. NICOLAS LUTERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23982 July 21, 1967 - DOMINGO ARAO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO R. LUSPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24321 July 21, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23538 July 21, 1967 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. RODOLFO VELAYO

  • G.R. No. 24322 July 21, 1967 - IN RE: ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24989 July 21, 1967 - PEDRO GRAVADOR v. EUTIQUIO MAMIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26222 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26959 July 21, 1967 - OSCAR V. CO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27121 July 21, 1967 - JOSE OSCAR M. SALAZAR, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 483 July 21, 1967 - GIL DE LOS SANTOS v. MARIO BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. L-25515 July 24, 1967 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18060 July 25, 1967 - REMIGIO JOAQUIN v. ISIDRA CUJUANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26245 July 25, 1967 - PABLO MONTEZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26764 July 25, 1967 - BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL TRANSIT SHOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23118 July 26, 1967 - POLICARPIO VIRAY, ET AL. v. CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26605 July 27, 1967 - PABLO D. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27671 & L-27684-86 July 27, 1967 - PABLO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27477 July 28, 1967 - TEODORO JULIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 19373 July 29, 1967 - FELIX ASEJO, ET AL. v. ADRIANO CHUA JOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967 - ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-20560 July 31, 1967 - EMILIANO ACUÑA v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20649 July 31, 1967 - CHUC SIU, ET AL. v. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-21275 July 31, 1967 - ZAMBOANGA GENERAL UTILITIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21588 July 31, 1967 - ATLAS DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN M. GOZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22501 July 31, 1967 - MARIANO CALLEJA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22604 July 31, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PORTUGUEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23002 July 31, 1967 - CONCEPCION FELIX VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ v. GERONIMO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24930 July 31, 1967 - SHELL REFINING COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27492 July 31, 1967 - SALUSTIANO O. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.