Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PIL filed, by special appearance, a motion to On the issue of lack of cause of action – It is well-
dismiss Todaro’s complaint. PIL’s co-defendants, settled that the merits of a motion to dismiss a
PCPI, PPHI, and Klepzig, filed a separate motion complaint for lack of cause of action is tested on
to dismiss. PIL asserted that the trial court has no the strength of the allegations of fact contained in
jurisdiction over PIL because PIL is a foreign the complaint and no other.
corporation not doing business in the Philippines.
PIL also questioned the service of summons on It should be emphasized that the presence of a
it. Assuming arguendo that Klepzig is PIL’s agent cause of action rests on the sufficiency, and not
in the Philippines, it was not Klepzig but De Leon on the veracity, of the allegations in the complaint.
who received the summons for PIL. PIL further The veracity of the allegations will have to be
stated that the NLRC, and not the trial court, has examined during the trial on the merits. In
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of
It claimed that assuming that the trial court has cause of action, the trial court is limited to the four
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, corners of the complaint and its annexes. It is not
the complaint should be dismissed on the ground yet necessary for the trial court to examine the
of forum non-conveniens. Finally, PIL maintained truthfulness of the allegations in the complaint.
that the complaint does not state a cause of
Such examination is proper during the trial on the Juan was driven away from the property through
merits. force by the heirs of a certain Ines Ramirez (Ines),
one of whom is defendant Milagros; because of
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not mention poverty and lack of knowledge, Juan was not able
forum non-conveniens as a ground for filing a to assert his right to the said property but he
motion to dismiss. The propriety of dismissing a informed his children that they own the above-
case based on forum non-conveniens requires a described parcel of land; and the continuous
factual determination; hence, it is more properly possession of the property by Milagros and her
considered a matter of defense. co-defendants, tenants has further deprived
As to the first sub-issue, PIL insists that its sole herein petitioners of their right over the same.
act of "transacting" or "doing business" in the Defendants denied the allegations of petitioners
Philippines consisted of its investment in PPHI. in their complaint asserting that Juan was not the
Under Philippine law, PIL’s mere investment in owner and never took possession of the disputed
PPHI does not constitute "doing business." lot.
However, we affirm the lower courts’ ruling and
declare that, based on the allegations in Todaro’s Defendants were declared in default. Petitioners
complaint, PIL was doing business in the ex-parte evidence. RTC ruled in favor of
Philippines when it negotiated Todaro’s petitioners.
employment with PPHI.
RTC received a Motion for Leave of Court to
Finally, the phrase "doing business in the Intervene with an attached Answer-in-
Philippines" in the former version of Section 12, Intervention filed by the compulsory heirs of Ines,
Rule 14 now reads "has transacted business in among whom are herein respondents, who are
the Philippines." The scope is thus broader in that also co-heirs of defendant Milagros. The
it is enough for the application of the Rule that the intervenors contended that the subject parcel of
foreign private juridical entity "has transacted land forms part of the estate of Ines which is yet
business in the Philippines." to be partitioned among them; the outcome of
Civil Case No. OD-306, one way or the other,
Thus, we rule that PIL transacted business in the would adversely affect their interest; their rights
Philippines and Klepzig was its agent within the would be better protected in the said civil case;
Philippines. However, there was improper service and their intervention would not unduly delay, or
of summons on PIL since summons was not in any way prejudice the rights of the original
served personally on Klepzi parties.
The case is remanded to the trial court for proper RTC denied the said motion to intervene on the
service of summons and trial. ground that it has already rendered judgment and
2. Galicia vs Manlinquez. GR No. 155785. April under Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court,
13, 2008 the motion to intervene should have been filed
before rendition of judgment by the trial court.
Facts:
Respondents filed a petition for annulment of
The present case originated from a complaint judgment with the CA anchored on grounds of
filed with the RTC-Romblon by herein petitioners, lack of jurisdiction over their persons and property
in their capacity as heirs of Juan Galicia (Juan), and on extrinsic fraud. CA granted the petition.
against Milagros Rico-Glori (Milagros) and her
tenants Dominador Musca and Alfonso Fallar, Jr. Issue: W/N the motion to intervene should be
for Recovery of Possession and Ownership, allowed – Yes
Annulment of Title, Documents and Other Held:
Papers.
The rule on intervention, like all other rules of
Petitioners contended that their predecessor, procedure, is intended to make the powers of the
Juan, was the true and lawful owner of a parcel of Court fully and completely available for justice. It
land; after years of possession of the said land, is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive
adjudication of rival claims overriding the ground that, as the case involves title to or
technicalities on the timeliness of the filing possession of real property or any interest therein
thereof. Indeed, in exceptional cases, the Court and since the assessed value of the subject
has allowed intervention notwithstanding the property does not exceed ₱20k, the action falls
rendition of judgment by the trial court. within the jurisdiction of the MTC. RTC granted
MtoD.
Since it is not disputed that herein respondents
are compulsory heirs of Ines who stand to be Respondents filed a Motion for Partial
affected by the judgment of the trial court, the Reconsideration, arguing that their complaint
latter should have granted their Motion to consists of several causes of action, including
Intervene and should have admitted their one for annulment of documents, which is
Answer-in-Intervention. incapable of pecuniary estimation and, as such,
falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. RTC
Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, defines granted, held that it is incapable of pecuniary
indispensable parties as parties-in-interest estimation. CA affirmed.
without whom there can be no final determination
of an action. As such, they must be joined either Issue: W/N RTC has jurisdiction – Yes
as plaintiffs or as defendants. The general rule
with reference to the making of parties in a civil Held:
action requires the joinder of all necessary parties It is true that one of the causes of action of
where possible and the joinder of all respondents pertains to the title, possession and
indispensable parties under any and all interest of each of the contending parties over the
conditions, their presence being a sine qua non contested property, the assessed value of which
for the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC. However,
when an indispensable party is not before the a complete reading of the complaint would readily
court that the action should be dismissed. The show that, based on the nature of the suit, the
absence of an indispensable party renders all allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the
subsequent actions of the court null and void for action is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present. As stated above, it is clear from the records that
respondents' complaint was for "Declaration of
As to the question of whether the trial court Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Shares,
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of herein Partition, Damages and Attorney's Fees." In filing
respondents, the Court has held that the filing of their Complaint with the RTC, respondents
motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to sought to recover ownership and possession of
admit answer, for additional time to file answer, their shares in the disputed parcel of land by
for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to questioning the due execution and validity of the
lift order of default with motion for Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale as well
reconsideration, are considered voluntary as the Memorandum of Agreement entered into
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. by and between some of their co-heirs and herein
3. Genesis Investment vs Ebarasabal. GR No. petitioners. Aside from praying that the RTC
181622. Nov 20, 2013 render judgment declaring as null and void the
said Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale
Facts: and Memorandum of Agreement, respondents
likewise sought the following: (1) nullification of
On November 12, 2003, herein respondents filed the Tax Declarations subsequently issued in the
against herein petitioners a Complaint for name of petitioner Cebu Jaya Realty, Inc.; (2)
Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of partition of the property in litigation; (3)
Shares, Partition, Damages and Attorney's Fees reconveyance of their respective shares; and (3)
with RTC-Cebu. payment of moral and exemplary damages, as
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss contending well as attorney's fees, plus appearane fees.
that the RTC has no jurisdiction to try the case on
Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of
action which comprehends more than the issue of
partition of or recovery of shares or interest over
the real property in question but includes an
action for declaration of nullity of contracts and
documents which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.