8/13/2019 Remedial Law} Case Survey of Justice Mendoza Ponentes} Made 2002} by Ateneo} 29 Pages

1/29

R E M E D I A L L A WJ U S T I C E M E N D O Z A C A S E D I G E S T SA T E N E O C E N T R A L B A R O P E R A T I O N S 2 0 0 2

JURISDICTION

MTC JURISDICTION

FRANCEL REALTY v. CA22 Jan. 1996

Facts: P, a subdivision developer, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against R in the!". #n its complaint, P alleged that R failed to pa$ monthl$ amorti%ations despitedemands to update his pa$ments and to vacate the premises. !he !" dismissed thecomplaint for lac& of 'urisdiction, holding that the case was cogni%able b$ the ()*R+.

Issu: oes the !" have 'urisdiction over the complaint-

!"#: o. /hile generall$ spea&ing an action for unlawful detainer falls within theoriginal and e0clusive 'urisdiction of the !", this case is a not simpl$ an unlawful

detainer case. !his case involves a determination of the rights and obligations of partiesin a sale of real estate under P.. o. 9, which controvers$ is e0clusivel$ cogni%ableb$ the ()*R+. !he ()*R+ has 'urisdiction not onl$ over complaints of bu$ers againstsubdivision developers but also over actions filed b$ developers for the unpaid price ofthe lots or units.

$DA. DE CRUZ v. CA3 ar. 1999

Facts: P filed an unlawful detainer case against with the !". claimed ownershipover the disputed land.

Issu: /as the !" ousted of its 'urisdiction, considering the 4uestion of ownershipwas raised-

!"#: o. 5fter the enactment of +.P. 129, the inferior courts now retain 'urisdictionover an e'ectment case even if the 4uestion of possession cannot be resolved withoutpassing upon the issue of ownership, with the e0press 4ualification that such issue ofownership shall be resolved onl$ for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.

RTC JURISDICTION

$INZONS%C!ATO v. NATI$IDAD2 Jun. 199

Facts: P, a revenue officer, wrote the "ommissioner of the +#R to reconsider herdecision to transfer him to another revenue district. /ith his letter unacted upon, P filedwith the R!" a complaint for #n'unction against the "ommissioner.

Issu: oes the R!" have 'urisdiction to entertain Ps complaint-

!"#: o. *nder the law, an$ emplo$ee who 4uestions the validit$ of his transfershould appeal to the "ivil 7ervice "ommission. !he R!" 'udge should dismiss theaction for failure of P to e0haust administrative remedies.

REPUBLIC v. CA8 ct. 1996

Facts: P owned several hectares of land which the government too& pursuant to the"omprehensive 5grarian Reform )aw ;R.5. o. 66

8/13/2019 Remedial Law} Case Survey of Justice Mendoza Ponentes} Made 2002} by Ateneo} 29 Pages

2/29

R E M E D I A L L A WJ U S T I C E M E N D O Z A C A S E D I G E S T SA T E N E O C E N T R A L B A R O P E R A T I O N S 2 0 0 2

Issu: /as the dismissal proper-

!"#: o. *nder = of R.5. 66, the 7pecial 5grarian "ourts, which are the Regional!rial "ourts, are given original and e0clusive 'urisdiction over >all petitions for thedetermination of 'ust compensation of 'ust compensation to landowners.? @urthermore,the 5R is an administrative agenc$ which cannot be granted 'urisdiction over cases ofeminent domain. !he valuation of propert$ in eminent domain is essentiall$ a 'udicialfunction which cannot be vested in administrative agencies.

NATIONAL STEEL v. CA2 @eb. 1999

Facts: P filed a complaint against . P, however, failed to pa$ the correct amount ofdoc&et fees.

Issu: 7hould the complaint be dismissed-

!"#: o. 5lthough the pa$ment of the proper doc&et fees is a 'urisdictionalre4uirement, the R!" ma$ allow P in an action to pa$ the same within a reasonable timebefore the e0piration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementar$ period. #f P fails tocompl$ with this re4uirement, should timel$ raise the issue of 'urisdiction or else hewould be considered in estoppel. #n the latter case, the balance between the appropriatedoc&et fees and the amount actuall$ paid b$ P will be considered a lien on an$ award hema$ obtain in his favor.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE

ODSIGUE $. CA288 7"R5 626 ;1993one for review b$ wa$ of appeal b$ certiorari.? #n a resolution, however, the "5 denied

21

8/13/2019 Remedial Law} Case Survey of Justice Mendoza Ponentes} Made 2002} by Ateneo} 29 Pages

22/29

R E M E D I A L L A WJ U S T I C E M E N D O Z A C A S E D I G E S T SA T E N E O C E N T R A L B A R O P E R A T I O N S 2 0 0 2

the motion for e0tension on the ground that the >petition for certiorari? which P intendedto file was not the proper remed$.

Issu: /as the "5 correct in den$ing the motion for e0tension on this ground-

!"#: o. !he "5 was rather hast$ in concluding that P was going to file a petition forcertiorari solel$ on the basis of Ps allegation that he was going to file a petition forcertiorari. #t should have reserved 'udgment on the matter until it had actuall$ receivedthe petition especiall$ considering that Ps motion for e0tension was filed well within thereglementar$ period for filing a petition for review. 5s it turned out, what P actuall$ filedwas a petition for review which complies with all the re4uirements for such petition.

$ILLAREAL v. CA1 7ept. 199C

Facts: n 5pril 2, filed a otion for Reconsideration of a decision. n 5ugust 1, theR!" issued an order den$ing said otion. n 5ugust 16, a photocop$ of the said order

was served. n 5ugust 21, received the duplicate original cop$ of the order. n thesame day, filed a notice of appeal. !he R!" denied due course to s appeal, holdingthat it was filed out of time.

Issu: @rom which date should the period for filing an appeal be counted: from 5ugust16, or from 5ugust 21-

!"#: 5ugust 21. #t cannot be from 5ugust 16, when was given a mere photocop$ ofthe courts order. 7uch cop$ lac&s assurance of its genuineness, considering thatphotocopies can easil$ be tampered with, for the purpose of enabling to determinewhether or not to appeal and, if the$ do so, what issues to raise on appeal. !he R!",therefore, should have given due course to s appeal.

PACIFIC v. CONCORDIA2 ov. 199C

Facts: 5 'udgment was rendered b$ the R!" ordering to pa$ damages to P. filed anotice of appeal. 7ubse4uentl$, however, the decision was modified b$ the R!" withrespect to the award of damages and the amounts thereof. did not appeal the modifieddecision.

Issu: 7hould have filed another notice of appeal when the original decision, fromwhich it had appealed, was modified-

!"#: o. did not have to file another notice of appeal, having given notice of itsintention to appeal the original decision. !o be sure, the modified decision substantiall$amended the original decision. +ut s failure to appeal from the modified decision didnot render its prior appeal from the original decision ineffective. +oth decisions ordered to pa$ damages to P although in different amounts. #t is also undisputed that seasonabl$ appealed from the original 'udgment.

ABELLERA $. CA826 7"R5 3C ;2the writ of habeas corpusshall e0tend to all cases of illegal confinement of his libert$, or b$ which the rightfulcustod$ of an$ person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.? #t is indeed true thatthe determination of the right to the custod$ of minor children is relevant in cases wherethe parents, who are married to each other, are for some reason separated from eachother. #t does not follow, however, that it cannot arise in an$ other situation.

CORRECTIONOFENTRIESINT!ECI$ILREGISTRY

REPUBLIC v. CA1 ar. 1996

Facts: P filed a petition for the adoption of .. with pra$er for the correction of theminors first name >idael? to >ichael?. !he 7olicitor eneral opposed the petition,arguing that the correction could not be granted because the petition was basicall$ foradoption, not the correction of an entr$ in the civil registr$ under Rule 1C of the Rules of"ourt. 7ignificantl$, the notice and publication re4uirements of Rule 1C were notcomplied with. !he R!" dismissed the opposition of the 7olicitor eneral on the ground

that Rule 1C does not appl$ in this case.

Issu: oes Rule 1C appl$ in this case-

!"#: Bes. !his case falls under letter >;o

8/13/2019 Remedial Law} Case Survey of Justice Mendoza Ponentes} Made 2002} by Ateneo} 29 Pages

29/29

R E M E D I A L L A WJ U S T I C E M E N D O Z A C A S E D I G E S T SA T E N E O C E N T R A L B A R O P E R A T I O N S 2 0 0 2

must be impleaded in the case and a notice of the petition for correction of entr$ must bepublished. 7ince these re4uirements were not complied with, the R!" had, so far as thecorrection of entr$ was concerned, no 'urisdiction.

$ENUEOFSETTLEMENTOFESTATE

MALOLES III $. P!ILLIPS823 7"R5 12 ;2