Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Matienzo vs Abellera
FACTS
The respondents admittedly operate "colorum" or "kabit" taxicab units. About the
second week of February, 1977, private respondents filed their petitions with the
respondent Board for the legalization of their unauthorized "excess" taxicab units citing
PD No. 101, wherein the respondent Board promulgated its orders setting the applications
for hearing and granting applicants provisional authority to operate their "excess taxicab
units" for which legalization was sought.
The petitioners, opposing the applications and seeking to restrain the grant of
provisional permits or authority, as well as the annulment of permits already granted
under PD 101, allege that the BOT acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the
petitions for legalization and awarding special permits to the private respondents.
ISSUE
RULING
WHEREFORE. the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The questioned
orders of the then Board of Transportation are AFFIRMED.
RATIO DECIDENDI
FACTS
A complaint was filed by a buyer, the herein private respondent, against the
petitioner, for delivery of title to a subdivision lot, which the latter failed to deliver the
corresponding certificate of title despite repeated demands because, as it appeared later,
the defendant had mortgaged the property in bad faith to a financing company. The
position of the petitioner, the defendant in that action, is that the decision of the trial court
is null and void ab initio because the case should have been heard and decided by what
is now called the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
ISSUE
RULING
RATIO DECIDENDI
The language of section 1 of PD No. 957, especially the italicized portions, leaves
no room for doubt that "exclusive jurisdiction" over the case between the petitioner and
the private respondent is vested not in the Regional Trial Court but in the National Housing
Authority.
This construction must yield to the familiar canon that in case of conflict between
a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of their
enactment.
It is settled that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may
be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court. 11 The only exception is
where the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel, 12 which does not appear in the
case before us.