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.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 14 pages?
- Spring '20
- Nature, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court