Spouses Herminio and Editha Erorita Vs. Spouses Antonio and Ligaya Dumlao
G.R. No. 195477. January 25, 2016

On March 4, 2004, the Spouses DUMLAO filed a complaint for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the defendants Hernan, Susan, and the Spouses Erorita.

On June 4, 2007, the RTC decided in the Spouses Dumlao’s favor.

On Appeal, ERORITA argued that the complaint patently shows a case for unlawful detainer. Thus, the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case

1.    Which court has jurisdiction over the case?

MTC has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the complaint.

Thus, although the complaint bears the caption "recovery of possession," its allegations contain the jurisdictional facts for an unlawful detainer case. Under RA 7691, an action for unlawful detainer is within the MTC’s exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the property’s assessed value.


2.    May ERORITA raise the issue on jurisdiction the first time on appeal? State the rule and the exception.

Yes.

As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, or even for the first time on appeal.

An exception to this rule is the principle of estoppel by laches. Laches refers to the "negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.” For example, if the lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time after almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered and after the movant actively participated in several stages of the proceedings. And the court rendered a decision adverse to the movant.

Note however that filing of an answer does not constitute the active participation in judicial proceedings. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Image
G.R. No. 214294 I What is the quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases? The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." II Are affidavits sufficient to establish substantial evidence in labor cases? Explain.  Yes, in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings. III What is the weight of an affidavit of witness in labor case? A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, ...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more