ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 102833.
LOLITA AMIGO and ESTELITA VDA. DE SALINAS, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE AUGUSTO V. BREVA, as Judge, RTC of Davao, Branch X, THE SHERIFF OF THE RTC represented by Alfonso M. Zamora, Deputy Sheriff of Branch X, and JESUS WEE ENG, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
Challenged in the petition for review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals rendered on 12 November 1991 1 dismissing the petition to annul the writs of execution and demolition issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 1 0, 2 in the implementation of its final judgment of eviction against herein petitioners in Civil Case No. 10363.
Petitioners Lolita Amigo and Estelita vda. de Salinas leased in
1961 from Mercedes Inigo, a parcel of land, also known as Lot
502-C-9, Psd-l0752, located along Leon Garcia St.,
Agdao District, Davao City,
registered in the lessors name under TCT No. T-5454. Petitioners constructed their houses on the lot. Mercedes
Inigo later sold and transferred her ownership of the land to Juan Bosquit and
herein private respondent Jesus Wee Eng. TCT No. T-5454 was cancelled and another title, TCT No. 13659, was issued on
On
In order to delineate the portion of Lot 502-C-9 ceded to the city government, Bosquit and Wee caused the preparation of plan Psd-i 1-00025 8 subdividing the property into Lot 502-C-9-A and Lot 502-C-9-B. For its part, the city government caused the subdivision of Lot 502-C-11 into Lot 502-C-11-A and Lot 502-C-11-B. In consonance with the agreement, TCT No. T-13659 held by Bosquit and Wee was cancelled and in lieu thereof, two separate certificates of title were issued: TCT No. 46656 in the name of the City Government of Davao covering Lot 502-C-9-A, and TCT No. 46657 in the names of Bosquit and Wee corresponding to Lot 502-C-9-B. In turn, TCT No. T-5788 in the name of the city government, was cancelled and two separate titles were issued: TCT No. T-51826 in the names of Bosquit and Wee for Lot 502-C-11-A and TCT No. T-51827 in the name of the city government over Lot 502-C-i 1-B.
On
On
On
"x x x portions of about two-thirds (2/3) of the houses of Lolita Amigo and that of Estelita Vda. de Salinas is inside of Lot 502-C-9-B, Psd-i 1-000258, covered by TCT No. T-5304l, issued in the name of Jesus Wee Eng; the remaining one-third of it lies on the road widening and the creek respectively." 5 cräläwvirtualibräry
Whereupon, private respondent sought an amendment of his
complaint which was allowed by the lower court on
In their amended answer, petitioners denied the material allegations of the amended complaint. Petitioners stressed that their houses stood neither on private respondents land nor on the sidewalk or shoulders of Leon Garcia Street but along the banks of the Agdao Creek.
Parenthetically, in 1982, during the pendency of Civil Case No. 10363, petitioners Amigo and Salinas were designated census-beneficiaries of their respective areas (Tag No. 82-A-0342 and Tag No. 82-A-0341) 8 under a so-called City of Davao RCDP-NHA Agreement.
After a full reception of the evidence, the trial court, on
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff:
"UNDER THE FIRST CA USE OF ACTION
"1. Ordering the defendants to vacate the portions of land occupied by them as appearing in the Commissioners Report (Exhibits C and D) and to deliver the same to the plaintiff; and
"2. To pay the.plaintiff the amount of THIRTY (P30. 00) PESOS each per month for the use of plaintiffs land, to be reckoned from the date of judicial demand on July 22, 1977 until defendants shall have vacated the premises in question.
"UNDER THE SECOND CA USE OF ACTION
"1. The defendants are hereby ordered to demolish the portions of their houses constructed on the road widening of Leon Garcia Street which constitute a nuisance per se;
"2. To pay plaintiff the amount of TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS for and as attorneys fees; and
"3. To pay costs.
"All other claims and counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED.
"SO ORDERED." 9 cräläwvirtualibräry
Petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals
(AC-G.R. CV No. 02405). In its resolution of
In due time, private respondent moved for execution of the judgment.
The lower court, in its order of
Meanwhile, on
On
Petitioners instituted the instant petition for review on certiorari raising several questions:
1. Whether or not the court a quo acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and their person in the case at bench;
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to consider the badges of fraud in the exchange of lots between private respondent and the City Government of Davao;
3. Whether or not their status as lessees in the disputed lot was affected by the said swapping or exchange of lots; and
4. Whether or not they are entitled to the so-called "right of first refusal" under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1417 and as such cannot be evicted from the disputed lot.
We deny the petition.
The Court must remind the parties that the case brought up to the Court of Appeals is an extraordinary action that has sought to annul the writs of execution and demolition issued under and by virtue of a final judgment that is alleged to be void for want of jurisdiction. The petition should not thus be used as a stratagem to once again reopen the entire controversy, and make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory, such as by allowing matters outside the question fjurisdiction to be here litigated anew. Accordingly, this ponencia must and shall only deal with the first of the above-enumerated issues raised in the instant petition.
Petitioners maintain that the judgment of the trial court is void for being coram non judice. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law 19 and determined by the allegations of the complaint. It should hardly be of any consequence that the merits of the case are later found to veer away from the claims asseverated by the plaintiff. The suit below is aimed at recovering real property, an action clearly well within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. 20 Incidentally, petitioners assertion that the litigated lots belong in ownership to the city government and not to private respondent is not borne out by the evidence on record. On the contrary, it appears that private respondent has been, and still is; the registered owner of both Lot 502-C-9-B and Lot 502-C-i 1-A, respectively, under TCT No. T-53041 and TCT No. T-53042. 21 cräläwvirtualibräry
Neither may petitioners feign absence ofjurisdiction over their persons. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil action is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons. 22 In this case, by their filing of an answer and later an amended answer, petitioners must be deemed to have formally and effectively appeared before the lower court. As early as 1918, the essence of voluntary appearance has been explained by this Court; thus, in Flores v. Zurbito, 23 we have said:
"A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in whatever form, without expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person. While the formal method of entering an appearance in a cause pending in the courts is to deliver to the clerk a written direction ordering him to enter the appearance of the person who subscribes it, an appearance may be made by simply filing a formal motion, or plea or answer. This formal method of appearance is not necessary." (Italics supplied.)
Unlike the question ofjurisdiction over the subject matter which may be invoked at any stage of the proceedings (even on appeal), the issue ofjurisdiction over the person of the defendant, however, as has been so held lately in La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 24 must be seasonably raised, and it can well be pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an answer. The records bear out the fact that petitioners have allowed the issue ofjurisdiction to pass unquestioned until the rendition of the judgment. It is now too late in the day for petitioners to assail the jurisdiction of the lower court over their person, a somersault that neither law nor policy will sanction. 25 cräläwvirtualibräry
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED
Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Kap unan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Emeterio C. Cui and concurred in by Associate Justices Regina G. Ordofiez-Benitez and Jose A. R. Melo.
2 presided by then Judge Pacita Cafiizares-Nye.
3 Resolution No. 584.
4 Rollo, pp. 67-68.
5 Ibid., p. 257
6 Ibid.,pp. 115-116.
7 lbid., pp. 110-1 14.
8 lbid., p. 198.
9 lbid., pp. 262-263.
10 Ibid., p. 265.
11 ibid., pp. 268-269.
12 Ibid., p. 271.
13 Ibid., pp. 91-95.
14 ibid., p. 127.
15 lbid., pp. 127-128.
16 lbid., pp. 49-65.
17 Ibid., p. 274.
18 Ibid., pp. 26-29.
19 lsidro v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503; Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. NLRC, 219 SCRA 536.
20 The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. BIg. 129) vests on said courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."
21 Annexes 22 & 23 to Private Respondents Comment on the Petition (Rollo, pp. 133-134).
22 Munar v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 372; Minucherv. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 242.
23 37 Phil. 746, 750; reiterated in Busuego v. Court of Appeals, 151 SCRA 376,385.
24 236 SCRA 78, 91.
25 Cloma vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 665,673.