Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
145022 September 23, 2005 offending news reports were printed and first published, the
ARMAND NOCUM and THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, original complaint, by reason of the deficiencies in its allegations,
INC., Petitioners, vs. LUCIO TAN, Respondent. failed to confer jurisdiction on the lower court.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Doctrine: Jurisdiction vs Venue; Venue can be waived in civil ISSUE: WON THE LOWER COURT ACQUIRED
cases JURISDICTION OVER THE CIVIL CASE UPON THE FILING OF
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FACTS: Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand
Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, ALPAP and Inquirer with the HELD: YES. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based
Regional Trial Court of Makati, seeking moral and exemplary on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a
damages for the alleged malicious and defamatory imputations concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's
contained in a news article. INQUIRER and NOCUM alleged that causes of action. Here, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the
the venue was improperly laid, among many others. It appeared case when the case was filed before it. From the allegations
that the complaint failed to state the residence of the complainant thereof, respondent’s cause of action is for damages arising from
at the time of the alleged commission of the offense and the place libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. Article 360
where the libelous article was printed and first published. of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is the RTC that is
specifically designated to try a libel case.
RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the
ground of improper venue. Aggrieved, Lucio Tan filed an Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. The Hon.
Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal and Florenz D. Regalado, differentiated jurisdiction and venue as
admission of the amended complaint. In par. 2.01.1 of the follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine
amended complaint, it is alleged that "This article was printed and a case; venue is the place where the case is to be heard or
first published in the City of Makati", and in par. 2.04.1, that "This tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue,
caricature was printed and first published in the City of Makati" of procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation
between the court and the subject matter; venue, a relation
RTC admitted the amended complaint and deemed set between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
aside the previous order of dismissal stating that the mistake or respondent; and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot
deficiency in the original complaint appears now to have been be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the
cured in the Amended Complaint. Also, there is no substantial act or agreement of the parties.
amendment, but only formal, in the Amended Complaint which
would affect the defendants’ defenses and their Answers. Here, the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint
that the article and the caricature were printed and first published
Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. in the City of Makati referred only to the question of venue and
Two petitions for certiorari were filed, one filed by petitioners and not jurisdiction. These additional allegations would neither confer
the other by defendants .The two petitions were consolidated. CA jurisdiction on the RTC nor would respondent’s failure to include
affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this PETREV filed by the same in the original complaint divest the lower court of its
the petitioners. Petitioners argue that since the original complaint jurisdiction over the case. Respondent’s failure to allege these
only contained the office address of respondent and not the allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a
latter’s actual residence or the place where the allegedly party, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not
properly laid. The term "jurisdiction" in Article 360 of the Revised goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This is not to be
Penal Code as referring to the place where actions for libel shall because the case before us is a civil action where venue is not
be filed or "venue." The amendment was merely to establish the jurisdictional.
proper venue for the action. It is a well-established rule that venue
has nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions. CA’s DECISION AFFIRMED.
Assuming that venue were properly laid in the court where the
action was instituted, that would be procedural, not a jurisdictional RULE 4 – VENUE
impediment.
Venue of real actions A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any
time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a
This question has already been answered in Dacoycoy v. reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.
Intermediate Appellate Court, where this Court held that it may
not. The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by Amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed in furtherance of
respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain justice, in order that every case may so far as possible be
error, obviously attributable to its inability to distinguish between determined on its real facts, and in order to speed the trial of
jurisdiction and venue. cases or prevent the circuitry of action and unnecessary expense.
The trial court, therefore, should have allowed the amendment
Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically proposed by petitioner for in so doing, it would have allowed the
governed by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. Jurisdiction actual merits of the case to be speedily determined, without
over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
law.[16] It may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court inexpensive manner.
which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject
The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings a. RTC ordered payment of the principal claims of the
to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the real controversies Union.
between the parties are presented, their rights determined and
the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay. This 4. The Liquidator filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, especially in Clarification of the order.
this case where the amendment to the complaint was made
a. DENIED!
before the trial of the case thereby giving petitioner all the time
allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial. 5. The Liquidator filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for
Additional Time to Submit Record on Appeal.
a. The respondent judge disallowed Liquidator's
PACIFIC BANKING CORP vs CA Notice of Appeal on the ground that it was late.
(Filed more than 15 days after receipt of the
decision)
FACTS: [Consolidated Case]
6. *CA: Liquidator filed a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus
CASE#1 (union)(5th division) a. CA held in the case of the Union that the
proceeding before the RTC was a special
1. Pacific Banking Corporation (PaBC) was placed under proceeding and, therefore, the period for
receivership by the Central Bank of the Philippines and, appealing from any decision or final order rendered
was placed under liquidation. therein is 30 days.
a. A Liquidator was appointed. b. Since the notice of appeal was filed on the 30th day
of his receipt of the decision granting the Union's
2. RTC: the Central Bank filed a petition entitled "Petition for
claims, the appeal was brought on time.
Assistance in the Liquidation of Pacific Banking
Corporation." c. RTC should give due course to the appeal.
a. The petition was approved, after which creditors 7. *SC: The Union filed a petition
filed their claims with the court.
a. The union contends that the case is a special
3. Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization proceeding and that the appeal was filed out of
(Union), herein petitioner, filed a complaint-in- time.
intervention seeking payment of holiday pay, 13th month
pay differential, salary increase differential, Christmas
bonus, and cash equivalent of Sick Leave Benefit due its
members as employees of PaBC. CASE #2 (stockholders/investors)(14th divison)
1. *RTC: Ang Keong Lan and E.J. Ang Int'l., private allows multiple appeals, in which case the period of
respondent, filed claims for the payment of investment in appeal is 30 days and not 15 days from receipt of
the PaBC allegedly in the form of shares of stocks the order/judgment appealed from.
amounting to US$2,531,632.18.
a. Respondent judge directed the Liquidator to pay
private respondents as preferred creditors. ISSUE: Whether a petition for liquidation is a special proceeding
or an ordinary civil action
2. The Liquidator moved for reconsideration
a. DENIED!
HELD: SPECIAL PROCEEDING
3. The Liquidator filed a Notice of Appeal from the orders.
a. As in the case of the Union, however, the judge
ordered the Notice of Appeal stricken off the record Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provide:
on the ground that it had been filed without authority §1. Action defined. — Action means an ordinary suit in a court of
of the Central Bank and beyond 15 days. justice, by which the party prosecutes another for the
b. The judge directed the execution of his order enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
granting the Stockholders/ Investors' claim. of a wrong.
Notes:
Section 2, Rule 72, Part II of the same Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of Civil Actions. - In the absence of
special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions Certification of non forum shopping:
shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
Stated differently, special provisions under Part II of the Rules of
Court govern special proceedings; but in the absence of special The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for
provisions, the rules provided for in Part I of the Rules governing complaints and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling
ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, that a contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is
as far as practicable. an initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole probate
proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for
The word “practicable” is defined as: possible to practice or allowance of the decedent's will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule
perform; capable of being put into practice, done or 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting letters of testamentary or
accomplished.1[4] of administration, all persons having money claims against the
decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate
administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they
would be barred, subject to certain exceptions.
This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in
ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much
as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to
said proceedings. Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more
akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and taken
Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules into consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the
in ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to estate.
special proceedings.
Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-
forum shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for
explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment the settlement of the decedent's estate; more so if the claim is
of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a separate
way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to action for a mere contingent claim. Hence, herein petitioner's
contingent money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not
require a certification against non-forum shopping.
In the present case, petitioner holds office in Salcedo Village,
Makati City, while counsel for respondent and the RTC which
rendered the assailed orders are both in Iligan City. The lower
Docket fees: court should have taken judicial notice of the great distance
between said cities and realized that it is indeed not practicable
to serve and file the money claim personally. Thus, following
the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim (attorney's Medina v. Court of Appeals,2[12] the failure of petitioner to submit
fees) against an estate for services rendered by a lawyer to the a written explanation why service has not been done personally,
administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to the estate even may be considered as superfluous and the RTC should have
without payment of separate docket fees because the filing fees exercised its discretion under Section 11, Rule 13, not to dismiss
shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule the money claim of petitioner, in the interest of substantial justice.
141 of the Rules of Court, or the trial court may order the payment
of such filing fees within a reasonable time. After all, the trial court
had already assumed jurisdiction over the action for settlement of Emilio Pacioles v. Miguela Chuatoco-ChingFacts:
the estate. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing fees for a
money claim against the estate is not one of the grounds for 1.Miguelita died intestate. She was survived by her huband
dismissing a money claim against the estate. (petitioner) and two minor children.2.Emilio filed a verified
petition for the settlement of Miguelita’s estate.3.Miguelita’s
mother filed an opposition to the petition for issuance of letters
of administration. That the bulk of the estate is composed of
Written explanation why the money claim was not filed and
paraphernal properties. She wishedto be appointed. She also
served personally:
said that she has direct and material interest in the estate
becauseshe gave half of her inherited properties to the deceased
on conditio ntaht they wouldundertake a business endeavor as
Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, partners.4.The mother asked that one Emmanuel be
personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other appointed.5.Court appointed Emilio and Emmanuel as joint-
modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever administrator.6.No claims were filed. Thereafter,
personal service or filing is practicable, in the light of the Emilio filed an inventory.Emmanuel failed to file
circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or one.7.Court declared Emilio and his children as the
filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not only compulsoryheirs of the deceased.8.Emilio then petitioned
practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then the court for the payment of estate tax andthe partition and
be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal distribution of the estate.9.RTC denied the petition as
service or filing was not practicable to begin with. to the partition and distribution. CA affirmed.
Issue: is merely todetermine whether or not a property should be
included in the inventory
May a trial court, acting as an intestate court, hear and pass upon
questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of . The facts of this case show that such was not the purpose of the
the decedent’s estate? intestate court.i.
Held: First
1. General Rule:a.jurisdiction of the trial court either as an , the inventory was not disputed.1. Respondent could have
intestate or a probate court relates only tomatters having to do opposed petitioner’s inventory and
with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of
deceasedpersons but sought the exclusion of thespecific properties which she
believed or considered to be hers
does not extend to the determination of questions of
ownership thatarise during the proceedings . But instead of doing so,she expressly adopted the inventory,
taking exception only to the low valuation placed on thereal estate
.i. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court exercises properties.ii. Second, Emmanuel (respondent’s son) did not file
special and limited jurisdiction.b.A well-recognized deviation to an inventory1.
the rule is the principle that an intestate or a probatecourt may
hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is He could have submitted an inventory, excluding therefrom
todetermine whether or not a property should be included in the those propertieswhich respondent considered to be hers.
inventoryi.Pastor v. CA1.As a rule, the question of ownership is The fact that he did not endeavor tosubmit one shows that
an extrataneous matter which theprobate court cannot resolve he acquiesced with petitioner’s inventory.
with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a
2.Clearly, the RTC, acting as an intestate court, had overstepped
certain property should or should not be included inthe inventory
its jurisdiction. Itsproper course should have been to maintain a
of estate properties, the probate court may pass upon the
hands-off stance on the matter. It iswell- settled in this jurisdiction,
titlethereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive,
sanctioned and reiterated in a long line of decisions,that when a
and is subjectto the final decision in a separate action to resolve
question arises as to ownership of property alleged to be a part
title2. Reliance to Pastor v. CA
of theestate of the deceased person, but claimed by some other
person to be his property,not by virtue of any right of inheritance
from the deceased but by title adverse to thatof the deceased and
a. The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the above principle in his estate, such question cannot be determined in the course
sustaining the jurisdiction of the intestate court to conduct a of an intestate or probate proceedings.
hearing on respondent’s claim.
The intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to
Such relianceis misplaced adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to
thecourt in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a
.b. Under the said principle, the key consideration is that the regional trial court.
purpose of theintestate or probate court in hearing and passing
upon questions of ownership a.
Jurisprudence states that: ISSUE:
i. probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether W/N the compromise agreement is valid, even if the will of
testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to Francisco has not yet been probated.
properties claimed to be a part of the estateand which are
claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court HELD:
could do as regardssaid properties is to determine whether
YES, the compromise agreement is valid.
they should or should not be included in the inventoryor list
of properties to be administered by the administrator. If The agreement stipulated that Tasiana will receive P800,000 as
there is no dispute, well andgood, but if there is, then the full payment for her hereditary share in the estate of Francisco
parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have and Josefa.
toresort to an ordinary action for a final determination of
the conflicting claims of title becausethe probate court There was here no attempt to settle or distribute the estate of
cannot do so.3. Hence, respondent’s recourse is to file a Francisco de Borja among the heirsthereto before the probate of
separate action with a court of general jurisdiction. The his will. The clear object of the contract was merely
intestate court is not the appropriate forum for the the conveyance by Tasiana Ongsingco of any and all her
resolution of her adverseclaim of ownership over individual share and interest, actual or eventual, in the estate of
properties ostensibly belonging to Miguelita's estate. Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco. There is no stipulation as
to any other claimant, creditor or legatee.
And as a hereditary share in a decedent’s estate is transmitted or
Borja v. Borja vested immediately from the moment of the death of
46 SCRA 577 such causante or predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the
Philippines, Art. 777) there is no legal bar to a successor (with
FACTS:
requisite contracting capacity) disposing of her or
Francisco de Borja filed a petition for probate of the will of his wife his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the
who died, Josefa Tangco, with the CFI of Rizal. He was actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent
appointed executor and administrator, until he died; his son Jose liquidation of the estate.
became the sole administrator. Francisco had taken a 2nd wife
Tasiana before he died; she instituted testate proceedings with
the CFI of Nueva Ecija upon his death and was appointed special
administatrix. Jose and Tasiana entered upon a compromise
agreement, but Tasiana opposed the approval of the
compromise agreement. She argues that it was no valid, because
the heirs cannot enter into such kind of agreement without first
probating the will of Francisco, and at the time the agreement was
made, the will was still being probated with the CFI of Nueva
Ecija.