30 it is absence of or no jurisdiction that is the

30
It is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court
should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
In the present case, the action a quo is one for mandamus and, under Section 21 of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, the Regional Trial Court exercises original jurisdiction in the
issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of their regions. The court a quo after evaluating
the allegations in the initiatory pleading concluded that the action is one for specific performance
and proceeded to hear it as such. In doing so, the said court retained jurisdiction. The same law
grants the Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases in which the subject

of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and all cases in which the demand exceeds
100,000.00, to which the action a quo belongs. ₱ 32
14
G.R. No. 182819 June 22, 2011
MAXIMINA A. BULAWAN, Petitioner,
vs.
EMERSON B. AQUENDE, Respondent.
The Facts
On 1 March 1995, Bulawan filed a complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages
against Lourdes Yap (Yap) and the Register of Deeds claimed that she is the owner of Lot No. 1634-
B of Psd-153847 having bought the property from its owners, brothers Santos and Francisco
Yaptengco (Yaptengco brothers), who claimed to have inherited the property from Yap Chin
Cun.
7
Bulawan alleged that Yap claimed ownership of the same property and caused the issuance of
TCT No. 40292 in Yap’s name.
On 26 November 1996, the trial court ruled in favor of Bulawan.
Yap appealed. On 20 July 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed Yap’s appeal.
On 7 February 2002, the trial court’s 26 November 2006 Decision became final and executory per
entry of judgment dated 20 July 2001. On 19 July 2002, the trial court issued a writ of execution.
12
On 2 August 2002, Aquende filed a Third Party Claim
15
against the writ of execution because it
affected his property and, not being a party in Civil Case No. 9040, he argued that he is not bound
by the trial court’s 26 November 1996 Decision. In a letter dated 5 August 2002,
16
the Clerk of Court
said that a Third Party Claim was not the proper remedy because the sheriff did not levy upon or
seize Aquende’s property. Moreover, the property was not in the sheriff’s possession and it was not
about to be sold by virtue of the writ of execution.
Aquende then filed a Notice of Appearance with Third Party Motion
17
and prayed for the partial
annulment of the trial court’s 26 November 1996 Decision, specifically the portion which ordered the
cancellation of Psd-187165 as well as any other certificate of title issued pursuant to Psd-187165.
Aquende also filed a Supplemental Motion
18
where he reiterated that he was not a party in Civil Case
No. 9040 and that since the action was in personam or quasi in rem , only the parties in the case are
bound by the decision.