KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.

,
Vs.
MINORU KITAMURA,
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the April 18, 2001 Decision1! of the
Court of Appeals "CA# in CA$%&R& '( )o& *082+, and the ,ul- 25, 2001 Resolution2! den-ing the .otion for reconsideration thereof&
/n 0arch 10, 1222, petitioner )ippon 3ngineering Consultants Co&, 4td& ")ippon#, a ,apanese consultanc- fir. providing technical and
.anage.ent support in the infrastructure pro5ects of foreign govern.ents,1! entered into an 6ndependent Contractor Agree.ent "6CA# with
respondent 0inoru 7ita.ura, a ,apanese national per.anentl- residing in the (hilippines&4! 8he agree.ent provides that respondent was to
e9tend professional services to )ippon for a -ear starting on April 1, 1222&5! )ippon then assigned respondent to wor: as the pro5ect
.anager of the 'outhern 8agalog Access Road "'8AR# (ro5ect in the (hilippines, following the co.pan-;s consultanc- contract with the
(hilippine %overn.ent&*!
<hen the '8AR (ro5ect was near co.pletion, the Depart.ent of (u=lic <or:s and >ighwa-s "D(<># engaged the consultanc-
services of )ippon, on ,anuar- 28, 2000, this ti.e for the detailed engineering and construction supervision of the Bonga=on$Baler Road
6.prove.ent "BBR6# (ro5ect&+! Respondent was na.ed as the pro5ect .anager in the contract;s Appendi9 1&1&8!
/n ?e=ruar- 28, 2000, petitioner 7a@uhiro >asegawa, )ippon;s general .anager for its 6nternational Division, infor.ed respondent that
the co.pan- had no .ore intention of auto.aticall- renewing his 6CA& >is services would =e engaged =- the co.pan- onl- up to the
su=stantial co.pletion of the '8AR (ro5ect on 0arch 11, 2000, 5ust in ti.e for the 6CA;s e9pir-&2!
8hreatened with i.pending une.plo-.ent, respondent, through his law-er, reAuested a negotiation conference and de.anded that he
=e assigned to the BBR6 pro5ect& )ippon insisted that respondentBs contract was for a fi9ed ter. that had alread- e9pired, and refused to
negotiate for the renewal of the 6CA&10!
As he was not a=le to generate a positive response fro. the petitioners, respondent conseAuentl- initiated on ,une 1, 2000 Civil Case
)o& 00$02*4 for specific perfor.ance and da.ages with the Regional 8rial Court of 4ipa Cit-&11!
?or their part, petitioners, contending that the 6CA had =een perfected in ,apan and e9ecuted =- and =etween ,apanese nationals,
.oved to dis.iss the co.plaint for lac: of 5urisdiction& 8he- asserted that the clai. for i.proper pre$ter.ination of respondent;s 6CA could onl-
=e heard and ventilated in the proper courts of ,apan following the principles of le9 loci cele=rationis and le9 contractus&12!
6n the .eanti.e, on ,une 20, 2000, the D(<> approved )ippon;s reAuest for the replace.ent of 7ita.ura =- a certain C& 7ota:e as
pro5ect .anager of the BBR6 (ro5ect&11!
/n ,une 22, 2000, the R8C, invo:ing our ruling in 6nsular %overn.ent v& ?ran:14! that .atters connected with the perfor.ance of
contracts are regulated =- the law prevailing at the place of perfor.ance,15! denied the .otion to dis.iss&1*! 8he trial court su=seAuentl-
denied petitioners; .otion for reconsideration,1+! pro.pting the. to file with the appellate court, on August 14, 2000, their first (etition for
Certiorari under Rule *5 doc:eted as CA$%&R& '( )o& *0205!&18! /n August 21, 2000, the CA resolved to dis.iss the petition on procedural
groundsDfor lac: of state.ent of .aterial dates and for insufficient verification and certification against foru. shopping&12! An 3ntr- of
,udg.ent was later issued =- the appellate court on 'epte.=er 20, 2000&20!
Aggrieved =- this develop.ent, petitioners filed with the CA, on 'epte.=er 12, 2000, still within the regle.entar- period, a second
(etition for Certiorari under Rule *5 alread- stating therein the .aterial dates and attaching thereto the proper verification and certification&
8his second petition, which su=stantiall- raised the sa.e issues as those in the first, was doc:eted as CA$%&R& '( )o& *082+&21!
Ruling on the .erits of the second petition, the appellate court rendered the assailed April 18, 2001 Decision22! finding no grave a=use
of discretion in the trial court;s denial of the .otion to dis.iss& 8he CA ruled, a.ong others, that the principle of le9 loci cele=rationis was not
applica=le to the case, =ecause nowhere in the pleadings was the validit- of the written agree.ent put in issue& 8he CA thus declared that the
trial court was correct in appl-ing instead the principle of le9 loci solutionis&21!
(etitioners; .otion for reconsideration was su=seAuentl- denied =- the CA in the assailed ,ul- 25, 2001 Resolution&24!
Re.aining steadfast in their stance despite the series of denials, petitioners instituted the instant (etition for Review on Certiorari25!
i.puting the following errors to the appellate courtE
A& 8>3 >/)/RAB43 C/FR8 /? A((3A4' %RAG34C 3RR3D 6) ?6)D6)% 8>A8 8>3 8R6A4 C/FR8 GA46D4C 3H3RC6'3D
,FR6'D6C86/) /G3R 8>3 6)'8A)8 C/)8R/G3R'C, D3'(683 8>3 ?AC8 8>A8 8>3 C/)8RAC8 'FB,3C8 0A883R /? 8>3
(R/C33D6)%' A IF/ <A' 3)83R3D 6)8/ BC A)D B38<33) 8</ ,A(A)3'3 )A86/)A4', <R6883) <>/44C 6) 8>3 ,A(A)3'3
4A)%FA%3 A)D 3H3CF83D 6) 8/7C/, ,A(A)&
B& 8>3 >/)/RAB43 C/FR8 /? A((3A4' %RAG34C 3RR3D 6) /G3R4//76)% 8>3 )33D 8/ R3G63< /FR AD>3R3)C3 8/
8>3 (R6)C6(43 /? 43H 4/C6 '/4F86/)6' 6) 8>3 46%>8 /? R3C3)8 D3G34/(03)8'! 6) (R6GA83 6)83R)A86/)A4 4A<'&2*!
8he pivotal Auestion that this Court is called upon to resolve is whether the su=5ect .atter 5urisdiction of (hilippine courts in civil cases
for specific perfor.ance and da.ages involving contracts e9ecuted outside the countr- =- foreign nationals .a- =e assailed on the principles
of le9 loci cele=rationis, le9 contractus, the Jstate of the .ost significant relationship rule,K or foru. non conveniens&
>owever, =efore ruling on this issue, we .ust first dispose of the procedural .atters raised =- the respondent&
7ita.ura contends that the finalit- of the appellate court;s decision in CA$%&R& '( )o& *0205 has alread- =arred the filing of the second
petition doc:eted as CA$%&R& '( )o& *082+ "funda.entall- raising the sa.e issues as those in the first one# and the instant petition for review
thereof&
<e do not agree& <hen the CA dis.issed CA$%&R& '( )o& *0205 on account of the petition;s defective certification of non$foru.
shopping, it was a dis.issal without pre5udice&2+! 8he sa.e holds true in the CA;s dis.issal of the said case due to defects in the for.al
reAuire.ent of verification28! and in the other reAuire.ent in Rule 4* of the Rules of Court on the state.ent of the .aterial dates&22! 8he
dis.issal =eing without pre5udice, petitioners can re$file the petition, or file a second petition attaching thereto the appropriate verification and
certificationDas the-, in fact didDand stating therein the .aterial dates, within the prescri=ed period10! in 'ection 4, Rule *5 of the said
Rules&11!
8he dis.issal of a case without pre5udice signifies the a=sence of a decision on the .erits and leaves the parties free to litigate the
.atter in a su=seAuent action as though the dis.issed action had not =een co..enced& 6n other words, the ter.ination of a case not on the
.erits does not =ar another action involving the sa.e parties, on the sa.e su=5ect .atter and theor-&12!
)ecessaril-, =ecause the said dis.issal is without pre5udice and has no res 5udicata effect, and even if petitioners still indicated in the
verification and certification of the second certiorari petition that the first had alread- =een dis.issed on procedural grounds,11! petitioners
are no longer reAuired =- the Rules to indicate in their certification of non$foru. shopping in the instant petition for review of the second
certiorari petition, the status of the aforesaid first petition =efore the CA& 6n an- case, an o.ission in the certificate of non$foru. shopping
a=out an- event that will not constitute res 5udicata and litis pendentia, as in the present case, is not a fatal defect& 6t will not warrant the
dis.issal and nullification of the entire proceedings, considering that the evils sought to =e prevented =- the said certificate are no longer
present&14!
8he Court also finds no .erit in respondent;s contention that petitioner >asegawa is onl- authori@ed to verif- and certif-, on =ehalf of
)ippon, the certiorari petition filed with the CA and not the instant petition& 8rue, the Authori@ation15! dated 'epte.=er 4, 2000, which is
attached to the second certiorari petition and which is also attached to the instant petition for review, is li.ited in scopeDits wordings indicate
that >asegawa is given the authorit- to sign for and act on =ehalf of the co.pan- onl- in the petition filed with the appellate court, and that
authorit- cannot e9tend to the instant petition for review&1*! 6n a plethora of cases, however, this Court has li=erall- applied the Rules or even
suspended its application whenever a satisfactor- e9planation and a su=seAuent fulfill.ent of the reAuire.ents have =een .ade&1+! %iven
that petitioners herein sufficientl- e9plained their .isgivings on this point and appended to their Repl-18! an updated Authori@ation12! for
>asegawa to act on =ehalf of the co.pan- in the instant petition, the Court finds the sa.e as sufficient co.pliance with the Rules&
>owever, the Court cannot e9tend the sa.e li=eral treat.ent to the defect in the verification and certification& As respondent pointed out,
and to which we agree, >asegawa is trul- not authori@ed to act on =ehalf of )ippon in this case& 8he aforesaid 'epte.=er 4, 2000
Authori@ation and even the su=seAuent August 1+, 2001 Authori@ation were issued onl- =- )ippon;s president and chief e9ecutive officer, not
=- the co.pan-;s =oard of directors& 6n not a few cases, we have ruled that corporate powers are e9ercised =- the =oard of directorsL thus, no
person, not even its officers, can =ind the corporation, in the a=sence of authorit- fro. the =oard&40! Considering that >asegawa verified and
certified the petition onl- on his =ehalf and not on =ehalf of the other petitioner, the petition has to =e denied pursuant to 4oAuias v& /ffice of
the /.=uds.an&41! 'u=stantial co.pliance will not suffice in a .atter that de.ands strict o=servance of the Rules&42! <hile technical rules
of procedure are designed not to frustrate the ends of 5ustice, nonetheless, the- are intended to effect the proper and orderl- disposition of
cases and effectivel- prevent the clogging of court doc:ets&41!
?urther, the Court has o=served that petitioners incorrectl- filed a Rule *5 petition to Auestion the trial court;s denial of their .otion to
dis.iss& 6t is a well$esta=lished rule that an order den-ing a .otion to dis.iss is interlocutor-, and cannot =e the su=5ect of the e9traordinar-
petition for certiorari or .anda.us& 8he appropriate recourse is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the o=5ections raised in the
.otion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case =- appeal in due course&44! <hile there are
recogni@ed e9ceptions to this rule,45! petitioners; case does not fall a.ong the.&
8his =rings us to the discussion of the su=stantive issue of the case&
Asserting that the R8C of 4ipa Cit- is an inconvenient foru., petitioners Auestion its 5urisdiction to hear and resolve the civil case for
specific perfor.ance and da.ages filed =- the respondent& 8he 6CA su=5ect of the litigation was entered into and perfected in 8o:-o, ,apan, =-
,apanese nationals, and written wholl- in the ,apanese language& 8hus, petitioners posit that local courts have no su=stantial relationship to
the parties4*! following the state of the! .ost significant relationship rule in (rivate 6nternational 4aw&4+!
8he Court notes that petitioners adopted an additional =ut different theor- when the- elevated the case to the appellate court& 6n the
0otion to Dis.iss48! filed with the trial court, petitioners never contended that the R8C is an inconvenient foru.& 8he- .erel- argued that the
applica=le law which will deter.ine the validit- or invalidit- of respondent;s clai. is that of ,apan, following the principles of le9 loci
cele=rationis and le9 contractus&42! <hile not a=andoning this stance in their petition =efore the appellate court, petitioners on certiorari
significantl- invo:ed the defense of foru. non conveniens&50! /n petition for review =efore this Court, petitioners dropped their other
argu.ents, .aintained the foru. non conveniens defense, and introduced their new argu.ent that the applica=le principle is the state of the!
.ost significant relationship rule&51!
Be that as it .a-, this Court is not inclined to den- this petition .erel- on the =asis of the change in theor-, as e9plained in (hilippine
(orts Authorit- v& Cit- of 6loilo&52! <e onl- pointed out petitioners; inconstanc- in their argu.ents to e.phasi@e their incorrect assertion of
conflict of laws principles&
8o elucidate, in the 5udicial resolution of conflicts pro=le.s, three consecutive phases are involvedE 5urisdiction, choice of law, and
recognition and enforce.ent of 5udg.ents& Corresponding to these phases are the following AuestionsE "1# <here can or should litigation =e
initiatedM "2# <hich law will the court appl-M and "1# <here can the resulting 5udg.ent =e enforcedM51!
Anal-ticall-, 5urisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts&54! ,urisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to
travel to this stateL choice of law as:s the further Auestion whether the application of a su=stantive law which will deter.ine the .erits of the
case is fair to =oth parties& 8he power to e9ercise 5urisdiction does not auto.aticall- give a state constitutional authorit- to appl- foru. law&
<hile 5urisdiction and the choice of the le9 fori will often coincide, the J.ini.u. contactsK for one do not alwa-s provide the necessar-
Jsignificant contactsK for the other&55! 8he Auestion of whether the law of a state can =e applied to a transaction is different fro. the Auestion
of whether the courts of that state have 5urisdiction to enter a 5udg.ent&5*!
6n this case, onl- the first phase is at issueD5urisdiction& ,urisdiction, however, has various aspects& ?or a court to validl- e9ercise its
power to ad5udicate a controvers-, it .ust have 5urisdiction over the plaintiff or the petitioner, over the defendant or the respondent, over the
su=5ect .atter, over the issues of the case and, in cases involving propert-, over the res or the thing which is the su=5ect of the litigation&5+! 6n
assailing the trial court;s 5urisdiction herein, petitioners are actuall- referring to su=5ect .atter 5urisdiction&
,urisdiction over the su=5ect .atter in a 5udicial proceeding is conferred =- the sovereign authorit- which esta=lishes and organi@es the
court& 6t is given onl- =- law and in the .anner prescri=ed =- law&58! 6t is further deter.ined =- the allegations of the co.plaint irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or so.e of the clai.s asserted therein&52! 8o succeed in its .otion for the dis.issal of an action for lac:
of 5urisdiction over the su=5ect .atter of the clai.,*0! the .ovant .ust show that the court or tri=unal cannot act on the .atter su=.itted to it
=ecause no law grants it the power to ad5udicate the clai.s&*1!
6n the instant case, petitioners, in their .otion to dis.iss, do not clai. that the trial court is not properl- vested =- law with
5urisdiction to hear the su=5ect controvers- for, indeed, Civil Case )o& 00$02*4 for specific perfor.ance and da.ages is one not capa=le of
pecuniar- esti.ation and is properl- cogni@a=le =- the R8C of 4ipa Cit-&*2! <hat the- rather raise as grounds to Auestion su=5ect .atter
5urisdiction are the principles of le9 loci cele=rationis and le9 contractus, and the Jstate of the .ost significant relationship rule&K
8he Court finds the invocation of these grounds unsound&
4e9 loci cele=rationis relates to the Jlaw of the place of the cere.on-K*1! or the law of the place where a contract is .ade&*4! 8he
doctrine of le9 contractus or le9 loci contractus .eans the Jlaw of the place where a contract is e9ecuted or to =e perfor.ed&K*5! 6t controls
the nature, construction, and validit- of the contract**! and it .a- pertain to the law voluntaril- agreed upon =- the parties or the law intended
=- the. either e9pressl- or i.plicitl-&*+! Fnder the Jstate of the .ost significant relationship rule,K to ascertain what state law to appl- to a
dispute, the court should deter.ine which state has the .ost su=stantial connection to the occurrence and the parties& 6n a case involving a
contract, the court should consider where the contract was .ade, was negotiated, was to =e perfor.ed, and the do.icile, place of =usiness, or
place of incorporation of the parties&*8! 8his rule ta:es into account several contacts and evaluates the. according to their relative
i.portance with respect to the particular issue to =e resolved&*2!
'ince these three principles in conflict of laws .a:e reference to the law applica=le to a dispute, the- are rules proper for the second
phase, the choice of law&+0! 8he- deter.ine which state;s law is to =e applied in resolving the su=stantive issues of a conflicts pro=le.&+1!
)ecessaril-, as the onl- issue in this case is that of 5urisdiction, choice$of$law rules are not onl- inapplica=le =ut also not -et called for&
?urther, petitioners; pre.ature invocation of choice$of$law rules is e9posed =- the fact that the- have not -et pointed out an- conflict
=etween the laws of ,apan and ours& Before deter.ining which law should appl-, first there should e9ist a conflict of laws situation reAuiring the
application of the conflict of laws rules&+2! Also, when the law of a foreign countr- is invo:ed to provide the proper rules for the solution of a
case, the e9istence of such law .ust =e pleaded and proved&+1!
6t should =e noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign ele.ent, is =rought =efore a court or ad.inistrative agenc-, there
are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of itE "1# dis.iss the case, either =ecause of lac: of 5urisdiction or refusal to assu.e
5urisdiction over the caseL "2# assu.e 5urisdiction over the case and appl- the internal law of the foru.L or "1# assu.e 5urisdiction over the case
and ta:e into account or appl- the law of so.e other 'tate or 'tates&+4! 8he courtBs power to hear cases and controversies is derived fro. the
Constitution and the laws& <hile it .a- choose to recogni@e laws of foreign nations, the court is not li.ited =- foreign sovereign law short of
treaties or other for.al agree.ents, even in .atters regarding rights provided =- foreign sovereigns&+5!
)either can the other ground raised, foru. non conveniens,+*! =e used to deprive the trial court of its 5urisdiction herein& ?irst, it is
not a proper =asis for a .otion to dis.iss =ecause 'ection 1, Rule 1* of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground&++! 'econd,
whether a suit should =e entertained or dis.issed on the =asis of the said doctrine depends largel- upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court&+8! 6n this case, the R8C decided to assu.e 5urisdiction& 8hird, the propriet- of dis.issing
a case =ased on this principle reAuires a factual deter.inationL hence, this conflicts principle is .ore properl- considered a .atter of defense&
+2!
Accordingl-, since the R8C is vested =- law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed =- respondent and the grounds
raised =- petitioners to assail that 5urisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctl- denied the petitionersB .otion to dis.iss&

<>3R3?/R3, pre.ises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is D3)63D& '/ /RD3R3D&
CARMELO F. LAZATIN, MARINO A. MORALES, TEODORO L. DAVID and ANGELITO A. PELAYO,
- v!s"s -
HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO as OM#UDSMAN, and SANDIGAN#AYAN, THIRD DIVISION,
8his resolves the petition for certiorari under Rule *5 of the Rules of Court, pra-ing that the /.=uds.an;s disapproval of the /ffice
of the 'pecial (rosecutor;s "/'(# Resolution1! dated 'epte.=er 18, 2000, reco..ending dis.issal of the cri.inal cases filed against herein
petitioners, =e reversed and set aside&
8he antecedent facts are as follows&
/n ,ul- 22, 1228, the ?act$?inding and 6ntelligence Bureau of the /ffice of the /.=uds.an filed a Co.plaint$Affidavit doc:eted as
/0B$0$28$1500, charging herein petitioners with 6llegal Fse of (u=lic ?unds as defined and penali@ed under Article 220 of the Revised (enal
Code and violation of 'ection 1, paragraphs "a# and "e# of Repu=lic Act "R&A&# )o& 1012, as a.ended&
8he co.plaint alleged that there were irregularities in the use =- then Congress.an Car.ello ?& 4a@atin of his Countr-wide Develop.ent
?und "CD?# for the calendar -ear 122*, i&e&, he was =oth proponent and i.ple.enter of the pro5ects funded fro. his CD?L he signed vouchers
and supporting papers pertinent to the dis=urse.ent as Dis=ursing /fficerL and he received, as clai.ant, eighteen "18# chec:s a.ounting to
(4,8*8,2++&08& 8hus, petitioner 4a@atin, with the help of petitioners 0arino A& 0orales, Angelito A& (ela-o and 8eodoro 4& David, was allegedl-
a=le to convert his CD? into cash&
A preli.inar- investigation was conducted and, thereafter, the 3valuation and (reli.inar- 6nvestigation Bureau "3(6B# issued a
Resolution2! dated 0a- 22, 2000 reco..ending the filing against herein petitioners of fourteen "14# counts each of 0alversation of (u=lic
?unds and violation of 'ection 1 "e# of R&A& )o& 1012& 'aid Resolution was approved =- the /.=uds.anL hence, twent-$eight "28#
6nfor.ations doc:eted as Cri.inal Case )os& 2*08+ to 2*114 were filed against herein petitioners =efore the 'andigan=a-an&

(etitioner 4a@atin and his co$petitioners then filed their respective 0otions for ReconsiderationNReinvestigation, which .otions were
granted =- the 'andigan=a-an "8hird Division#& 8he 'andigan=a-an also ordered the prosecution to re$evaluate the cases against petitioners&
'u=seAuentl-, the /'( su=.itted to the /.=uds.an its Resolution1! dated 'epte.=er 18, 2000& 6t reco..ended the dis.issal of the
cases against petitioners for lac: or insufficienc- of evidence&
8he /.=uds.an, however, ordered the /ffice of the 4egal Affairs "/4A# to review the /'( Resolution& 6n a 0e.orandu.4! dated
/cto=er 24, 2000, the /4A reco..ended that the /'( Resolution =e disapproved and the /'( =e directed to proceed with the trial of the
cases against petitioners& /n /cto=er 2+, 2000, the /.=uds.an adopted the /4A 0e.orandu., there=- disapproving the /'( Resolution
dated 'epte.=er 18, 2000 and ordering the aggressive prosecution of the su=5ect cases& 8he cases were then returned to the
'andigan=a-an for continuation of cri.inal proceedings&
8hus, petitioners filed the instant petition&
(etitioners allege thatE
6& 8>3 /0BFD'0A) AC83D <68> %RAG3 ABF'3 /? D6'CR386/) /R AC83D <68>/F8 /R 6) 3HC3'' /? >6' ,FR6'D6C86/)&
66& 8>3 IF3'86/)3D R3'/4F86/) <A' BA'3D /) 06'A((R3>3)'6/) /? ?AC8', '(3CF4A86/)', 'FR06'3' A)D
C/),3C8FR3'&5!
A.plif-ing their argu.ents, petitioners asseverate that the /.=uds.an had no authorit- to overturn the /'(;s Resolution dis.issing the
cases against petitioners =ecause, under 'ection 11, Article H6 of the 128+ Constitution, the /.=uds.an is clothed onl- with the power to
watch, investigate and reco..end the filing of proper cases against erring officials, =ut it was not granted the power to prosecute& 8he- point
out that under the Constitution, the power to prosecute =elongs to the /'( "for.erl- the 8anod=a-an#, which was intended =- the fra.ers to
=e a separate and distinct entit- fro. the /ffice of the /.=uds.an& (etitioners conclude that, as provided =- the Constitution, the /'( =eing
a separate and distinct entit-, the /.=uds.an should have no power and authorit- over the /'(& 8hus, petitioners .aintain that R&A& )o&
*++0 "8he /.=uds.an Act of 1282#, which .ade the /'( an organic co.ponent of the /ffice of the /.=uds.an, should =e struc: down for
=eing unconstitutional&
)e9t, petitioners insist that the- should =e a=solved fro. an- lia=ilit- =ecause the chec:s were issued to petitioner 4a@atin allegedl- as
rei.=urse.ent for the advances he .ade fro. his personal funds for e9penses incurred to ensure the i..ediate i.ple.entation of pro5ects
that are =adl- needed =- the (inatu=o victi.s&
8he Court finds the petition un.eritorious&
(etitioners; attac: against the constitutionalit- of R&A& )o& *++0 is stale& 6t has long =een settled that the provisions of R&A& )o& *++0
granting the /ffice of the /.=uds.an prosecutorial powers and placing the /'( under said office have no constitutional infir.it-& 8he issue
of whether said provisions of R&A& )o& *++0 violated the Constitution had =een full- dissected as far =ac: as 1225 in Acop v& /ffice of the
/.=uds.an&*!
8herein, the Court held that giving prosecutorial powers to the /.=uds.an is in accordance with the Constitution as paragraph 8,
'ection 11, Article H6 provides that the /.=uds.an shall Je9ercise such other functions or duties as .a- =e provided =- law&K 3lucidating on
this .atter, the Court statedE
9 9 9 <hile the intention to withhold prosecutorial powers fro. the /.=uds.an was indeed present, the Co..ission referring to the
Constitutional Co..ission of 128*! did not hesitate to reco..end that the 4egislature could, through statute, prescri=e such other powers,
functions, and duties to the /.=uds.an& 9 9 9 As finall- approved =- the Co..ission after several a.end.ents, this is now e.=odied in
paragraph 8, 'ection 11, Article H6 "Accounta=ilit- of (u=lic /fficers# of the Constitution, which providesE
'ec&11& 8he /ffice of the /.=uds.an shall have the following powers, functions, and dutiesE
9 9 9 9
(ro.ulgate its rules and procedure and e9ercise such other functions or duties as .a- =e provided =- law&
39pounding on this power of Congress to prescri=e other powers, functions, and duties to the /.=uds.an, we Auote Co..issioners
Cola-co and 0onsod during interpellation =- Co..issioner RodrigoE
9 9 9 9
0R& R/DR6%/E
(recisel-, 6 a. co.ing to that& 8he last of the enu.erated functions of the /.=uds.an isE Jto e9ercise such powers or perfor. such functions
or duties as .a- =e provided =- law&K 'o, the legislature .a- vest hi. with powers ta:en awa- fro. the 8anod=a-an, .a- it notM

0R& C/4ACC/E
Ces&
0R& 0/)'/DE
Ces&
9 9 9 9
0R& R/DR6%/E
0ada. (resident& 'ection 5 readsE J8he 8anod=a-an shall continue to function and e9ercise its powers as provided =- law&K
0R& C/4ACC/E
8hat is correct, =ecause it is under (&D& )o& 1*10&
0R& R/DR6%/E
'o, if it is provided =- law, it can =e ta:en awa- =- law, 6 suppose&
0R& C/4ACC/E
8hat is correct&
0R& R/DR6%/E
And precisel-, 'ection 12"*# sa-s that a.ong the functions that can =e perfor.ed =- the /.=uds.an are Jsuch functions or duties as .a- =e
provided =- law&K 8he sponsors ad.itted that the legislature later on .ight re.ove so.e powers fro. the 8anod=a-an and transfer these to
the /.=uds.an&
0R& C/4ACC/E
0ada. (resident, that is correct&
9 9 9 9
0R& R/DR6%/E
0ada. (resident, what 6 a. worried a=out is, if we create a constitutional =od- which has neither punitive nor prosecutor- powers =ut onl-
persuasive powers, we .ight =e raising the hopes of our people too .uch and then disappoint the.&
0R& 0/)'/DE
6 agree with the Co..issioner&
0R& R/DR6%/E
An-wa-, since we state that the powers of the /.=uds.an can later on =e i.ple.ented =- the legislature, wh- not leave this to the
legislatureM
9 9 9 9
0R& 0/)'/DE "reacting to state.ents of Co..issioner Blas /ple#E
9 9 9 9
<ith respect to the argu.ent that he is a toothless ani.al, we would li:e to sa- that we are pro.oting the concept in its for. at the present,
=ut we are also sa-ing that he can e9ercise such powers and functions as .a- =e provided =- law in accordance with the direction of the
thin:ing of Co..issioner Rodrigo& <e do not thin: that at this ti.e we should prescri=e this, =ut we leave it up to Congress at so.e future
ti.e if it feels that it .a- need to designate what powers the /.=uds.an need in order that he =e .ore effective& 8his is not foreclosed&
'o, this is a reversi=le disa=ilit-, unli:e that of a eunuchL it is not an irreversi=le disa=ilit-&+!
8he constitutionalit- of 'ection 1 of R&A& )o& *++0, which su=su.ed the /'( under the /ffice of the /.=uds.an, was li:ewise upheld
=- the Court in Acop& 6t was e9plained, thusE

9 9 9 the petitioners conclude that the inclusion of the /ffice of the 'pecial (rosecutor as a.ong the offices under the /ffice of the
/.=uds.an in 'ection 1 of R&A& )o& *++0 "JAn Act (roviding for the ?unctional and 'tructural /rgani@ation of the /ffice of the /.=uds.an
and for /ther (urposesK# is unconstitutional and void&
8he contention is not i.pressed with .erit& 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 'ection + of Article H6 e9pressl- provides that the then e9isting 8anod=a-an, to =e henceforth :nown as the /ffice of the 'pecial
(rosecutor, Jshall continue to function and e9ercise its powers as now or hereafter .a- =e provided =- law, e9cept those conferred on the
/ffice of the /.=uds.an created under this Constitution&K 8he underscored phrase evidentl- refers to the 8anod=a-an;s powers under (&D&
)o& 1*10 or su=seAuent a.endator- legislation& 6t follows then that Congress .a- re.ove an- of the 8anod=a-an;sN'pecial (rosecutor;s
powers under (&D& )o& 1*10 or grant it other powers, e9cept those powers conferred =- the Constitution on the /ffice of the /.=uds.an&
(ursuing the present line of reasoning, when one considers that =- e9press .andate of paragraph 8, 'ection 11, Article H6 of the
Constitution, the /.=uds.an .a- Je9ercise such other powers or perfor. functions or duties as .a- =e provided =- law,K it is indu=ita=le
then that Congress has the power to place the /ffice of the 'pecial (rosecutor under the /ffice of the /.=uds.an& 6n the sa.e vein,
Congress .a- re.ove so.e of the powers granted to the 8anod=a-an =- (&D& )o& 1*10 and transfer the. to the /.=uds.anL or grant the
/ffice of the 'pecial (rosecutor such other powers and functions and duties as Congress .a- dee. fit and wise& 8his Congress did through
the passage of R&A& )o& *++0&8!
8he foregoing ruling of the Court has =een reiterated in Ca.anag v& %uerrero&2! 0ore recentl-, in /ffice of the /.=uds.an v& Galera,
10! the Court, =asing its ratio decidendi on its ruling in Acop and Ca.anag, declared that the /'( is J.erel- a co.ponent of the /ffice of the
/.=uds.an and .a- onl- act under the supervision and control, and upon authorit- of the /.=uds.anK and ruled that under R&A& )o& *++0,
the power to preventivel- suspend is lodged onl- with the /.=uds.an and Deput- /.=uds.an&11! 8he Court;s ruling in Acop that the
authorit- of the /.=uds.an to prosecute =ased on R&A& )o& *++0 was authori@ed =- the Constitution was also .ade the foundation for the
decision in (ere@ v& 'andigan=a-an,12! where it was held that the power to prosecute carries with it the power to authori@e the filing of
infor.ations, which power had not =een delegated to the /'(& 6t is, therefore, =e-ond cavil that under the Constitution, Congress was not
proscri=ed fro. legislating the grant of additional powers to the /.=uds.an or placing the /'( under the /ffice of the /.=uds.an&
(etitioners now assert that the Court;s ruling on the constitutionalit- of the provisions of R&A& )o& *++0 should =e revisited and the
principle of stare decisis set aside& Again, this contention deserves scant consideration&
8he doctrine of stare decisis et non Auieta .overe "to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are esta=lished# is
e.=odied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the (hilippines which provides, thusE
AR8& 8& ,udicial decisions appl-ing or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall for. a part of the legal s-ste. of the (hilippines&
6t was further e9plained in ?er.in v& (eople11! as followsE
8he doctrine of stare decisis en5oins adherence to 5udicial precedents& 6t reAuires courts in a countr- to follow the rule esta=lished in a
decision of the 'upre.e Court thereof& 8hat decision =eco.es a 5udicial precedent to =e followed in su=seAuent cases =- all courts in the
land& 8he doctrine of stare decisis is =ased on the principle that once a Auestion of law has =een e9a.ined and decided, it should =e dee.ed
settled and closed to further argu.ent&14!
6n Chinese Coung 0en;s Christian Association of the (hilippine 6slands v& Re.ington 'teel Corporation,15! the Court e9pounded on the
i.portance of the foregoing doctrine, stating thatE
8he doctrine of stare decisis is one of polic- grounded on the necessit- for securing certaint- and sta=ilit- of 5udicial decisions, thusE
8i.e and again, the court has held that it is a ver- desira=le and necessar- 5udicial practice that when a court has laid down a
principle of law as applica=le to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and appl- it to all future cases in which the facts are
su=stantiall- the sa.e& 'tare decisis et non Auieta .overe& 'tand =- the decisions and distur= not what is settled& 'tare decisis si.pl-
.eans that for the sa:e of certaint-, a conclusion reached in one case should =e applied to those that follow if the facts are su=stantiall- the
sa.e, even though the parties .a- =e different& 6t proceeds fro. the first principle of 5ustice that, a=sent an- powerful countervailing
considerations, li:e cases ought to =e decided ali:e& 8hus, where the sa.e Auestions relating to the sa.e event have =een put forward =- the
parties si.ilarl- situated as in a previous case litigated and decided =- a co.petent court, the rule of stare decisis is a =ar to an- atte.pt to
relitigate the sa.e issue&1*!
8he doctrine has assu.ed such value in our 5udicial s-ste. that the Court has ruled that Ja!=andon.ent thereof .ust =e =ased onl- on
strong and co.pelling reasons, otherwise, the =eco.ing virtue of predicta=ilit- which is e9pected fro. this Court would =e i..easura=l-
affected and the pu=lic;s confidence in the sta=ilit- of the sole.n pronounce.ents di.inished&K1+! Geril-, onl- upon showing that
circu.stances attendant in a particular case override the great =enefits derived =- our 5udicial s-ste. fro. the doctrine of stare decisis, can
the courts =e 5ustified in setting aside the sa.e&
6n this case, petitioners have not shown an- strong, co.pelling reason to convince the Court that the doctrine of stare decisis should not
=e applied to this case& 8he- have not successfull- de.onstrated how or wh- it would =e grave a=use of discretion for the /.=uds.an, who
has =een validl- conferred =- law with the power of control and supervision over the /'(, to disapprove or overturn an- resolution issued =-
the latter&
8he second issue advanced =- petitioners is that the /.=uds.an;s disapproval of the /'( Resolution reco..ending dis.issal of the
cases is =ased on .isapprehension of facts, speculations, sur.ises and con5ectures& 8he Auestion is reall- whether the /.=uds.an
correctl- ruled that there was enough evidence to support a finding of pro=a=le cause& 8hat issue, however, pertains to a .ere error of
5udg.ent& 6t .ust =e stressed that certiorari is a re.ed- .eant to correct onl- errors of 5urisdiction, not errors of 5udg.ent& 8his has =een
e.phasi@ed in ?irst Corporation v& ?or.er 'i9th Division of the Court of Appeals,18! to witE
6t is a funda.ental aphoris. in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the e9traordinar- re.ed- of certiorari,
which is e9tra ordine. $ =e-ond the a.=it of appeal& 6n certiorari proceedings, 5udicial review does not go as far as to e9a.ine and assess the
evidence of the parties and to weigh the pro=ative value thereof& 6t does not include an inAuir- as to the correctness of the evaluation of
evidence& An- error co..itted in the evaluation of evidence is .erel- an error of 5udg.ent that cannot =e re.edied =- certiorari& An error of
5udg.ent is one which the court .a- co..it in the e9ercise of its 5urisdiction& An error of 5urisdiction is one where the act co.plained of was
issued =- the court without or in e9cess of 5urisdiction, or with grave a=use of discretion, which is tanta.ount to lac: or in e9cess of 5urisdiction
and which error is correcti=le onl- =- the e9traordinar- writ of certiorari& Certiorari will not =e issued to cure errors of the trial court in its
appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law& 6t is not for this Court to
re$e9a.ine conflicting evidence, re$evaluate the credi=ilit- of the witnesses or su=stitute the findings of fact of the court a Auo&12!
3videntl-, the issue of whether the evidence indeed supports a finding of pro=a=le cause would necessitate an e9a.ination and re$
evaluation of the evidence upon which the /.=uds.an =ased its disapproval of the /'( Resolution& >ence, the (etition for Certiorari should
not =e given due course&
4i:ewise noteworth- is the holding of the Court in (residential Ad >oc ?act$?inding Co..ittee on Behest 4oans v& Desierto,20!
i.parting the value of the /.=uds.an;s independence, stating thusE
Fnder 'ections 12 and 11, Article H6 of the 128+ Constitution and RA *++0 "8he /.=uds.an Act of 1282#, the /.=uds.an has the
power to investigate and prosecute an- act or o.ission of a pu=lic officer or e.plo-ee when such act or o.ission appears to =e illegal, un5ust,
i.proper or inefficient& 6t has =een the consistent ruling of the Court not to interfere with the /.=uds.an;s e9ercise of his investigator- and
prosecutor- powers as long as his rulings are supported =- su=stantial evidence& 3nvisioned as the cha.pion of the people and preserver of
the integrit- of pu=lic service, he has wide latitude in e9ercising his powers and is free fro. intervention fro. the three =ranches of
govern.ent& 8his is to ensure that his /ffice is insulated fro. an- outside pressure and i.proper influence&21!
6ndeed, for the Court to overturn the /.=uds.an;s finding of pro=a=le cause, it is i.perative for petitioners to clearl- prove that said
pu=lic official acted with grave a=use of discretion& 6n (residential Co..ission on %ood %overn.ent v& Desierto,22! the Court ela=orated on
what constitutes such a=use, to witE
%rave a=use of discretion i.plies a capricious and whi.sical e9ercise of 5udg.ent tanta.ount to lac: of 5urisdiction& 8he /.=uds.an;s
e9ercise of power .ust have =een done in an ar=itrar- or despotic .anner which .ust =e so patent and gross as to a.ount to an evasion of a
positive dut- or a virtual refusal to perfor. the dut- en5oined or to act at all in conte.plation of law& 9 9 921!
6n this case, petitioners failed to de.onstrate that the /.=uds.an acted in a .anner descri=ed a=ove& Clearl-, the /.=uds.an was acting
in accordance with R&A& )o& *++0 and properl- e9ercised its power of control and supervision over the /'( when it disapproved the
Resolution dated 'epte.=er 18, 2000&
6t should also =e noted that the petition does not Auestion an- order or action of the 'andigan=a-an 8hird DivisionL hence, it should not
have =een included as a respondent in this petition&
6) G63< /? 8>3 ?/R3%/6)%, the petition is D6'06''3D for lac: of .erit& )o costs& '/ /RD3R3D&
HONORIO #ERNARDO,
- v!s"s -
HEIRS OF EUSE#IO VILLEGAS,
8his petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court see:s to assail the validit- of the Decision1! dated 21 April 2008
of the Court of Appeals, which affir.ed the 5udg.ent of the Regional 8rial Court "R8C# of Binangonan, Ri@al in Civil Case )o& R$00$015&
8his controvers- ste..ed fro. a Co.plaint dated 14 )ove.=er 2000 for accion pu=liciana filed =- respondent >eirs of 3use=io
Gillegas against petitioner >onorio Bernardo, Ro.eo %a@a "%a@a# and 0onina ?rancisco "?rancisco#& Respondents had earlier filed an
e5ect.ent case against the trio, doc:eted as Civil Case )o& 22$0*5 with the 0unicipal 8rial Court "08C# of Binangonan, Ri@al, which case was
dis.issed on the ground of lac: of 5urisdiction for having =een filed =e-ond the one$-ear prescriptive period for filing a forci=le entr- case&2!
Respondents alleged in the Co.plaint that their father, 3use=io Gillegas, is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered =- 8ransfer
Certificate of 8itle "8C8# )o& 4*821 with an area of 18,1*2 sAuare .eters and situated in Baranga- (ag$asa, Binangonan, Ri@alL that
petitioner, =- stealth and in the guise of .erel- gra@ing his cattle, surreptitiousl- entered into possession of a portion of respondentsB landL that
petitioner conspired and confederated with %a@a and ?rancisco =- illegall- constructing their own houses on the su=5ect landL that the issue of
possession was =rought to the =aranga- for conciliation =ut no settle.ent was reached =- the partiesL and that petitioner, %a@a and ?rancisco
had forci=l-, unlawfull- and un5ustl- possessed and continue to possess the su=5ect propert- and had refused to vacate the sa.e&
6n his Answer, petitioner denied ta:ing possession of an- portion of the propert- of respondents& >e argued that the cause of action is
=arred =- the 5udg.ent in the e5ect.ent case& >e clai.ed that he had =een in possession of his land since the earl- 1250s&1! As he did
=efore the 08C, petitioner also alleged lac: of 5urisdiction on the part of the R8C&
%a@a alleged that he has =een occup-ing an a=andoned river =ed ad5acent to the propert- allegedl- owned =- respondents&4! %a@a
averred that he entered into a written agree.ent with petitioner, who clai.ed to own the land and allowed hi. to =uild a nipa hut thereon&5!
An ocular inspection was conducted =- the trial court 5udge& /n 5 0arch 200+, the trial court rendered 5udg.ent in favor of respondents
and ordered petitioner, %a@a and ?rancisco to vacate the su=5ect land covered =- 8C8 )o& 4*821 and to pa- 5ointl- and severall- respondents
the a.ount of (10,000&00 as attorne-Bs fees and the cost of suit&*!
8he trial court held that the suit, =eing an accion pu=liciana, falls within its 5urisdiction& 6t found that the houses of petitioner and %a@a
were inside the titled propert- of respondents& 6ts findings were =ased on the testi.on- of one of the respondents, 3stelito GillegasL the
relocation plan prepared =- 3ngineer Rico ,& Rasa-L and the 8echnical Report on Gerification 'urve- su=.itted =- 3ngineer Ro=ert C&
(ang-arihan, petitionerBs own witness&+! 8he trial court noted that petitioner failed to present an- title or ta9 declaration to prove ownership or
possessor- right&8!
/n appeal, the Court of Appeals affir.ed the ruling of the trial court&
6n his appeal, petitioner Auestioned the 5urisdiction of the trial court over the su=5ect .atter and argued that in their co.plaint, the
respondents failed to state the assessed value of the propert- in dispute& 8he appellate court ruled that petitioner is estopped fro. raising the
issue of 5urisdiction =ecause he failed to file a .otion to dis.iss on such ground and, instead, activel- participated in the proceedings =efore
the trial court&
<ith respect to the argu.ent that =eing indispensa=le parties, all of the heirs of 3use=io Gillegas should have =een i.pleaded as
parties, the appellate court disagreed and invo:ed Article 48+ of the Civil Code, which provides that an- one of the co$owners .a- =ring an
action for e5ect.ent& 8he appellate court construed said provision to cover all :inds of actions for recover- of possession&2!
8he appellate court sustained the trial courtBs finding that the portions of the land occupied =- petitioner and %a@a are owned =-
respondents& 8he appellate court li:ewise ruled that respondents could not =e guilt- of laches considering that 3stelito Gillegas, upon seeing
for the first ti.e in 122* that petitioner was alread- =uilding his house on the pre.ises, ver=all- as:ed hi. to discontinue the construction&10!
>is .otion for reconsideration having =een denied, petitioner filed the instant petition&
(etitioner insists that the trial court had no 5urisdiction over the su=5ect .atter of the action for failure of respondents to allege the
assessed value of the propert- involved in their co.plaint& (etitioner =elies the ruling of the appellate court that he failed to raise o=5ections
=efore the trial court& (etitioner reiterates that he raised the defense of lac: of 5urisdiction as earl- as in his Answer filed =efore the trial court&
0oreover, he argues that even if he did not raise the defense of lac: of 5urisdiction, the trial court should have dis.issed the co.plaint .otu
proprio& (etitioner disputes the application to hi. of the doctrine of estoppel =- laches in 8i5a. v& 'i=onghano-&11! (etitioner avers that unli:e
in 8i5a., he raised the issue of 5urisdiction, not onl- in his answer, =ut also in his appeal& 12!
Respondents defend the ruling of the Court of Appeals and .aintain that petitioner is estopped fro. challenging the 5urisdiction of the
trial court&11!
8he issue presented =efore this Court is si.pleE <hether or not estoppel =ars petitioner fro. raising the issue of lac: of 5urisdiction&
Fnder Batas (a.=ansa Bilang 122, the plenar- action of accion pu=liciana .ust =e =rought =efore the regional trial courts& <ith the
.odifications introduced =- Repu=lic Act )o& +*2114! in 1224, the 5urisdiction of the regional trial courts was li.ited to real actions where the
assessed value e9ceeds (20,000&00, and (50,000&00 where the action is filed in 0etro 0anila, thusE
'3C& 12& ,urisdiction in civil cases& D Regional 8rial Courts shall e9ercise e9clusive original 5urisdictionE
9 9 9 9
"2# 6n all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real propert-, or an- interest therein, where the assessed value of the
propert- involved e9ceeds 8went- thousand pesos "(20,000&00# or, for civil actions in 0etro 0anila, where such value e9ceeds ?ift- thousand
pesos "(50,000&00# e9cept actions for forci=le entr- into and unlawful detainer of lands or =uildings, original 5urisdiction over which is conferred
upon the 0etropolitan 8rial Courts, 0unicipal 8rial Courts, and 0unicipal Circuit 8rial Courts&
Fnder the law as .odified, 5urisdiction is deter.ined =- the assessed value of the propert-&
A reading of the co.plaint shows that respondents failed to state the assessed value of the disputed land& 8he aver.ents readE
9 9 9 9
1& 3F'3B6/ G6443%A', deceased father of hte plaintiffs, is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Baranga- (ag$asa "for.erl-
Baranga- 8a-u.an#, Binangonan, Ri@al with a land area of 18,1*2 sAuare .eters& 8he sa.e is covered =- and e.=raced in 8ransfer
Certificate of 8itle )o& 4*821 of the Registr- of Deeds for the (rovince of Ri@al& 9 9 9&
4& (laintiffs are the legal heirs of 3F'3B6/ G6443%A' and succeeded to the su=5ect parcel of land =- virtue of their inheritance rights as
co.pulsor- heirs of said deceased 3use=io Gillegas and upon his death, i..ediatel- too: over and were en5o-ing the peaceful possession of
the said parcel of land and e9ercising said rights of possession and ownership thereofL
5& 8hat so.eti.e in 122*, defendant >onorio Bernardo, =- stealth and in guise of .erel- gra@ing his cattle, without the consent of the
plaintiffs, surreptitiousl- entered into the possession of a portion of the su=5ect parcel of land& 3.plo-ing threats and inti.idations, he clai.ed
later that the area he illegall- occupied is purportedl- not part and parcel of the land owned =- the plaintiffBs predecessor, 3use=io Gillegas, and
forci=l- fenced and =uilt his house on the portion of land he illegall- occupiedL
*& )ot =eing content with his own forci=le and unlawful invasion, usurpation and incursion into the plaintiffsB parcel of land, and in furtherance
of his desire to forci=l- e9clude the plaintiffs of their lawful and for possession of the su=5ect portion of plaintiffsB parcel of land, defendant
Bernardo, conspired and confederated with defendants Ro.eo %a@a and 0onina ?rancisco =- surreptitiousl- and illegall- constructing their
own houses on the su=5ect parcel of land through stealth and inti.idationL
+& 8hat the issue of the possession of the su=5ect parcel of land was =rought under the Baranga- ,ustice '-ste. in 122* for conciliation =ut,
no settle.ent was reached =- the parties& Copies of the Certifications issued =- the Baranga- for that .atter is hereto attached and .ar:ed
as Anne9 JBKL
8& 8hat the defendants have forci=l-, unlawfull-, and un5ustl- dispossessed and still continues to forci=l-, unlawfull-, and un5ustl- dispossesses
the plaintiffs of their lawful rights of possession and ownership on a portion of the su=5ect propert- since 12** up to the presentL
2& Because of the un5ust refusal of the defendants to vacate the pre.ises, plaintiffs were constrained to engage the services of counsel to
protect their interest on the propert- for an agreed attorne-Bs fee of (50,000&00, and have incurred litigation e9pensesL!
10& B- reason of the unlawful and forci=le invasion =- the defendants of the propert- of the plaintiffs which was acco.panied =- threats and
inti.idation, the plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer an9iet- and sleepless nights for which the defendants should =e .ade to
inde.nif- =- wa- of .oral da.ages in the a.ount of at least (100,000&00L
11& 8o serve as an e9a.ple to others who .ight =e .inded to co..it si.ilar wanton and unlawful acts, defendants should =e held answera=le
for e9e.plar- da.ages of not less than (50,000&00&15!
8his fact was noted =- the Court of Appeals in its Decision =ut it proceeded to rule in this wiseE
Records show that at the ti.e plaintiffs$appellees filed their co.plaint =elow, R&A& )o& +*21 which a.ended Batas (a.=ansa Blg& 122 was
alread- in effect& >owever, the co.plaint failed to allege the assessed value of the real propert- involved& Although appellant indeed raised
the issue of 5urisdiction in his answer, he had not filed a .otion to dis.iss on this ground nor reiterated the .atter thereafter =ut activel-
participated in the proceedings after the denial of his de.urrer to evidence anchored on the failure of the plaintiffs to identif- in their co.plaint
all the heirs of the registered owner and supposed lac: of technical description of the propert- in the certificate of title& 6ndeed, appellant is
now estopped to Auestion the trial courtBs 5urisdiction over the su=5ect .atter and nature of the case having activel- pursued throughout the
trial, =- filing various pleadings and presenting all relevant docu.entar- and testi.onial evidence, his theor- that the portion occupied =- hi.
is not covered =- the torrens title of 3use=io Gillegas&1*!
<e agree&
As alread- shown, nowhere in the co.plaint was the assessed value of the su=5ect propert- ever .entioned& 8here is no showing on the face
of the co.plaint that the R8C has 5urisdiction e9clusive of the 08C& 6ndeed, a=sent an- allegation in the co.plaint of the assessed value of
the propert-, it cannot readil- =e deter.ined which of the two trial courts had original and e9clusive 5urisdiction over the case&1+!
8he general rule is that the 5urisdiction of a court .a- =e Auestioned at an- stage of the proceedings&18! 4ac: of 5urisdiction is one of
those e9cepted grounds where the court .a- dis.iss a clai. or a case at an- ti.e when it appears fro. the pleadings or the evidence on
record that an- of those grounds e9ists, even if the- were not raised in the answer or in a .otion to dis.iss& 12! 8he reason is that 5urisdiction
is conferred =- law, and lac: of it affects the ver- authorit- of the court to ta:e cogni@ance of and to render 5udg.ent on the action&20!
>owever, estoppel sets in when a part- participates in all stages of a case =efore challenging the 5urisdiction of the lower court& /ne
cannot =elatedl- re5ect or repudiate its decision after voluntaril- su=.itting to its 5urisdiction, 5ust to secure affir.ative relief against one;s
opponent or after failing to o=tain such relief& 8he Court has, ti.e and again, frowned upon the undesira=le practice of a part- su=.itting a
case for decision and then accepting the 5udg.ent, onl- if favora=le, and attac:ing it for lac: of 5urisdiction when adverse&21!
6n 8i5a., the Court held that it is iniAuitous and unfair to void the trial courtBs decision for lac: of 5urisdiction considering that it was raised onl-
after fifteen "15# -ears of tedious litigation, thusE
8he facts of this case show that fro. the ti.e the 'uret- =eca.e a Auasi$part- on ,ul- 11, 1248, it could have raised the Auestion of the lac:
of 5urisdiction of the Court of ?irst 6nstance of Ce=u to ta:e cogni@ance of the present action =- reason of the su. of .one- involved which,
according to the law then in force, was within the original e9clusive 5urisdiction of inferior courts& 6t failed to do so& 6nstead, at several stages of
the proceedings in the court a Auo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invo:ed the 5urisdiction of said courts to o=tain affir.ative relief and
su=.itted its case for a final ad5udication on the .erits& 6t was onl- after an adverse decision was rendered =- the Court of Appeals that it
finall- wo:e up to raise the Auestion of 5urisdiction& <ere we to sanction such conduct on its part, <e would in effect =e declaring as useless all
the proceedings had in the present case since it was co..enced on ,ul- 12, 1248 and co.pel the 5udg.ent creditors to go up their Calvar-
once .ore& 8he ineAuit- and unfairness of this is not onl- patent =ut revolting&22!
8he principle of 5ustice and eAuit- as espoused in 8i5a. should =e applied in this case& 8he 08C dis.issed the e5ect.ent case upon its ruling
that the case is for accion pu=liciana& 6t did not assert 5urisdiction over the case even if it could have done so =ased on the assessed value of
the propert- su=5ect of the accion pu=liciana& And there was no showing, indeed, not even an allegation, that the 08C was not aware of its
5urisdictional authorit- over an accion pu=liciana involving propert- in the a.ount stated in the law& 0oreover, petitioner did not =ring up the
issue of 5urisdictional a.ount that would have led the 08C to proceed with the trial of the case& (etitioner o=viousl- considered the dis.issal
to =e in his favor& <hen, as a result of such dis.issal, respondents =rought the case as accion pu=liciana =efore the R8C, petitioner never
=rought up the issue of 5urisdictional a.ount& <hat petitioner .entioned in his Answer =efore the R8C was the generall- phrased allegation
that Jthe >onora=le Court has no 5urisdiction over the su=5ect .atter and the nature of the action in the a=ove$entitled case&K21!
8his general assertion, which lac:s an- =asis, is not sufficient& Clearl-, petitioner failed to point out the o.ission of the assessed value in
the co.plaint& (etitioner activel- participated during the trial =- adducing evidence and filing nu.erous pleadings, none of which .entioned
an- defect in the 5urisdiction of the R8C& 6t was onl- on appeal =efore the Court of Appeals, after he o=tained an adverse 5udg.ent in the trial
court, that petitioner, for the first ti.e, ca.e up with the argu.ent that the decision is void =ecause there was no allegation in the co.plaint
a=out the value of the propert-&
Clearl-, petitioner is estopped fro. Auestioning the 5urisdiction of the R8C&
<e note that the decisions of the R8C and of the Court of Appeals discussed e9tensivel- the .erits of the case, which has =een pending
for nearl- ten "10# -ears& 6t was handled =- two "2# 5udges and its records had to =e reconstituted after the fire that gutted the courthouse&24!
6f we were to accede to petitionerBs pra-er, all the effort, ti.e and e9penses of parties who participated in the litigation would =e wasted& Iuite
o=viousl-, petitioner wants a repetition of the process hoping for the possi=ilit- of a reversal of the decision& 8he Court will not countenance
such practice&
'ignificantl-, the 8echnical Report on Gerification 'urve-25! =- 3ngineer Ro=ert C& (ang-arihan, which was attached to and for.ed part of the
records, contained a ta9 declaration2*! indicating that the su=5ect propert- has an assessed value of (110,220&00& 6t is =asic that the ta9
declaration indicating the assessed value of the propert- en5o-s the presu.ption of regularit- as it has =een issued =- the proper govern.ent
agenc-&2+! Fnder Repu=lic Act )o& +*21, the R8C in fact has 5urisdiction over the su=5ect .atter of the action&
8a:ing into consideration the decision of the 08C proclai.ing that the case is one for accion pu=liciana and the assessed value of the
propert- as evidenced =- the case records, 5urisdiction pertains, rightfull- so, with the R8C& (erforce, the petition should =e denied&
<>3R3?/R3, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 21 April 2008, affir.ing the 5udg.ent of the Regional 8rial Court of Binangonan,
Ri@al dated 5 0arch 200+, is A??6R03D& '/ /RD3R3D&
MA. LUISA G. DAZON, PETITIONER, VS. KENNETH Y. YAP AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
D 3 C 6 ' 6 / )
D34 CA'8644/, ,&E
8he pri.ordial function of the >ousing and 4and Fse Regulator- Board ">4FRB# is the regulation of the real estate trade and =usiness&
8hough the agenc-;s 5urisdiction has =een e9panded =- law, it has not grown to the e9tent of enco.passing the conviction and punish.ent of
cri.inals&
8he present (etition for Review on Certiorari assails the /rders of the Regional 8rial Court "R8C# of 4apu$4apu Cit-, Branch 54 dated /cto=er
2, 2002 and ,anuar- 11,2001, which granted the 0otion to <ithdraw 6nfor.ation filed =- the pu=lic prosecutor and denied the .otion for
reconsideration filed =- petitioner, respectivel-&
?actual Antecedents
Respondent 7enneth C& Cap was the president of (ri.etown (ropert- %roup, 6nc&, "(ri.etown# the developer of 7iener >ills 0actan
Condo.iniu., a low$rise condo.iniu. pro5ect& 6n )ove.=er 122*, petitioner 0a& 4uisa %& Da@on entered into a contract1! with (ri.etown for
the purchase of Fnit )o& C$108 of the said condo.iniu. pro5ect& (etitioner .ade a downpa-.ent and several install.ent pa-.ents, totaling
(1,114,2+4&10&2! (ri.etown, however, failed to finish the condo.iniu. pro5ect& 8hus, on 0arch 22, 1222, petitioner de.anded for the refund
of her pa-.ents fro. (ri.etown, pursuant to 'ection 211! of (residential Decree "(D# )o& 25+ "12+*#, otherwise :nown as O8he 'u=division
and Condo.iniu. Bu-ers; (rotective DecreeO& (ri.etown failed to refund petitioner;s pa-.ents&
/n /cto=er 2*,2000,4! petitioner filed a cri.inal co.plaint with the /ffice of the Cit- (rosecutor of 4apu$4apu Cit- against respondent as
president of (ri.etown for violation of 'ection 21 in relation to 'ection 125! of (D 25+& 'u=seAuentl-, after a finding of pro=a=le cause, an
6nfor.ation*! was filed with the R8C of 4apu$4apu Cit- doc:eted as Cri.inal Case )o& 015111$4&
0eanwhile, respondent, in connection with the resolution finding pro=a=le cause filed a (etition for Review with the Depart.ent of ,ustice
"D/,#& /n ,une 14,2002, the D/, rendered a Resolution8! ordering the trial prosecutor to cause the withdrawal of the 6nfor.ation& >ence,
the prosecutor filed a 0otion to <ithdraw 6nfor.ation2! with the R8C&
8he R8C disposed of the .atter as followsE
<herefore, in view of the foregoing, the 0otion to <ithdraw 6nfor.ation filed =- the! pu=lic prosecutor is here=- granted& Accordingl-, the
infor.ation; filed against the herein accused is ordered withdrawn and to =e trans.itted =ac: to the Cit- (rosecutor;s /ffice of 4apu$4apu Cit-&
?urnish copies of this order to (rosecutor Ru=i, Att-s& Galde@ and (angan&
'/ /RD3R3D&10! (etitioner;s .otion for reconsideration was denied&11!
6ssue
>ence, the present (etition for Review on Certiorari raising the following issueE ;;<hether or not a regional trial court has 5urisdiction over a
cri.inal action arising fro. violation of (D 25+O&12!
(etitioner;s Argu.ents
(etitioner contends that 5urisdiction is conferred =- law and that there is no law e9pressl- vesting on the >4F7B e9clusive 5urisdiction over
cri.inal actions arising fro. violations of (D 25+&
Respondent;s Argu.ents
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that there is no error of law involved in this case and that petitioner failed to give due regard to the
hierarch- of courts =- filing the present petition directl- with the 'upre.e Court instead of with the Court of Appeals& >e further argues that the
real issue is not of 5urisdiction =ut the e9istence of pro=a=le cause& 8he 'ecretar- of ,ustice, according to respondent, found no pro=a=le
cause to warrant the filing of the 6nfor.ation, hence its directive to cause the withdrawal of the 6nfor.ation&
/ur Ruling
8he petition has .erit&
8he D/, Resolution dated ,une
14, 2002 which ordered the
withdrawal of the infor.ation
was =ased on the finding that
the >4FRB, and not the regular
court, has 5urisdiction over the case&
Both the respondent11! and the /'%14! agree with the petitioner that the regular courts and not the >4FRB have 5urisdiction over the
cri.inal aspect of (D 25+& 8he parties, however, disagree on the =asis of the directive of the D/, for the withdrawal of the 6nfor.ation& <as
it, as argued =- petitioner, lac: of 5urisdiction of the R8C or was it, as argued =- respondent, lac: of pro=a=le causeM <e perused the D/,
Resolution dated ,une 14, 2002 and we find that the =asis of the resolution was, not that there was lac: of pro=a=le cause =ut, the finding that
it is the >4FRB that has 5urisdiction over >ie case& (ertinent portions of the said D/, Resolution provideE
8he petition is i.pressed with .erit&
A perusal of the allegations in the co.plaint$affidavit would show co.plainant;s grievance against respondent was the failure of the latter;s
fir. to refund the pa-.ents she .ade for one of the units in the a=orted 0actan condo.iniu. pro5ect in the total a.ount of (1,114,2+4&10&
As earl- as in the case of 'olid >o.es, 6nc& vs& (a-awal, 1++ 'CRA +2, the 'upre.e Court had ruled that the >ousing and 4and Fse
Regulator- Board ">4FRB# has e9clusive 5urisdiction over cases involving real estate =usiness and practices under (D 25+& 8his ruling is
reiterated in several su=seAuent cases, to na.e a few of the., Fnion Ban: of the (hilippines$versus$>4FRB, %&R& )o& 2511*4, ,une 22,
1222L C&8& 8orres 3nterprises vs& >ilionada, 121 'CRA 28*L Gillaflor vs& Court of Appeals, 280 'CRA 22+L 0arina (roperties Coip& vs& Court of
Appeals, 224 'CRA 2+1L and Raet vs& Court of Appeals, 225 'CRA *++& /f significant relevance is the following pronounce.ent of the
'upre.e Court in Raet vs& Court of Appeals "supra#, as followsE
999 8he contention has .erit& 8he decision in the e5ect.ent suit is conclusive onl- on the Auestion of possession of the su=5ect pre.ises&
6t does not settle the principal Auestion involved in the present case, na.el-, whether there was perfected contract of sale =etween petitioners
and private respondent (GD>C involving the units in Auestion& Fnder 8"100# of 3&/& )o& *48 dated ?e=ruar- +, 1281, as a.ended =- 3&/&
)o& 20 dated Dece.=er 1+, 128* this Auestion is for the >4FRB to decide& 8he said provision of law gives that agenc- the power toPQK
>ear and decide cases of unsound real estate =usiness practicesL clai.s involving refi5nd filed against pro5ect owners, developers,
dealers, =ro:ers, or sales.enL and cases of specific perfor.ance&
8his 5urisdiction of the >4FRB is e9clusive& 6t has =een held to e9tend to the deter.ination of the Auestion whether there is a perfected
contract of sale =etween condo.iniu. =u-ers and the! developer 9 9 9&
6n fine, the Rule of 4aw dictates that we should -ield to this 5udicial declaration upholding the 5urisdiction of the >4FRB over cases of this
nature&
>ence, there is a need for the Court to .a:e a definite ruling on a Auestion of law $ the .atter of 5urisdiction over the cri.inal aspect of (D
25+&
,urisdiction over cri.inal actions
arising fro. violations of (D 25+
is vested in the regular courts&
,urisdiction isO conferred =- law and deter.ined =- the .aterial aver.ents in the co.plaint as well as the character of the relief sought&15 8he
scope and li.itation of the 5urisdiction of the >4FRB are well$defined&;* 6ts precusor, the )ational >ousing Authorit- ")>A#,1+ was vested
under (D 25+ with e9clusive 5urisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and =usiness,18 specificall- the registration of su=division or
condo.iniu. pro5ects and dealers, =ro:ers and sales.en of su=division lots or condo.iniu. units, issuance and suspension of license to sellL
and revocation of registration certificate and license to sell& 6ts 5urisdiction was later e9panded under (D 1144 "12+8# to include ad5udication of
certain cases, to witE
'ec& 1& 6n the e9ercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and =usiness and in addition to its powers provided for in (residential
Decree )o& 25+, the )ational >ousing Authorit- shall have the e9clusive 5urisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following natureE
a# Fnsound real estate =usiness practicesL
=# Clai.s involving refund and an- other clai.s filed =- su=division lot or condo.iniu. unit =u-er against the pro5ect owner, developer,
dealer, =ro:er or sales.anL and
c# Cases involving specific perfor.ance of contractual and statutor- o=ligations filed =- =u-ers of su=division lot or condo.iniu. unit
against the owner, developer, dealer, =ro:er or sales.an& "6talics supplied#
6t is a settled rule of statutor- construction that the e9press .ention of one thing in the law .eans the e9clusion of others not e9pressl-
.entioned& 8his rule is e9pressed in the fa.iliar .a9i. e9pressio unius est e9clusio alterius12!& <here a statute, =- its ter.s, is e9pressl-
li.ited to certain .atters, it .a- not, =- interpretation or construction, =e e9tended to others& 8he rule proceeds fro. the pre.ise that the
legislature would not have .ade specified enu.erations in a statute had the intention =een not to restrict its .eaning and to confine its ter.s
to statute had the intention =een not to restrict its .eaning and to confine its ter.s to those e9pressl- .entioned&20! )oticea=l-, cases that
are cri.inal in nature are not .entioned in the enu.eration Auoted a=ove& 8he pri.ordial function of the >4FRB, after all, is the regulation of
the real estate trade and =usiness and not the conviction and punish.ent of cri.inals& O6t .a- =e conceded that the legislature .a- confer on
ad.inistrative =oards or =odies Auasi$5udicial powers involving the e9ercise of 5udg.ent and discretion, as incident to the perfor.ance of
ad.inistrative functions& But in so doing, the legislature .ust state its intention in e9press ter.s that would leave no dou=t, as even such
Auasi$5udicial prerogatives .ust =e li.ited, if the- are to =e valid, onl- to those incidental to or in connection with the perfor.ance of
ad.inistrative duties, which do not a.ount to confer.ent of 5urisdiction over a .atter e9clusivel- vested in the courtsO&21!
Ad.inistrative agencies =eing tri=unals of li.ited 5urisdiction can onl- wield such powers as are specificall- granted to the. =- their ena=ling
statutes& (D 25+ .a:es the following specific grant of powers to the )>A "now >4FRB# for the i.position of ad.inistrative fines, and it also
.entions penalties for cri.inal cases, to witE
'ec& 18& Ad.inistrative ?ines&$ 8he Authorit- .a- prescri=e and i.pose fines not e9ceeding ten thousand pesos for violations of the
provisions of this Decree or an- rule or regulation thereunder& ?ines shall =e pa-a=le to the Authorit- and enforcea=le through writs of
e9ecution in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court "6talics supplied#
'ec& 12& (enalties&$ An- person who shall violate an- of the provisions of this Decree andNor an- rule or regulation that .a- =e issued
pursuant to this Decree shall, upon conviction, =e punished =- a fine of not .ore than twent- thousand "(20,000&00# pesos andNor
i.prison.ent of not .ore than ten -earsE (rovided, 8hat in the case of corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or associations, the (resident,
0anager or Ad.inistrator or the person who has charge of the ad.inistration of the =usiness shall =e cri.inall- responsi=le for an- violation of
thisNDecree andNor the rules and regulations pro.ulgated pursuant thereto,
>aving li.ited, under 'ection 18 of (D 25+, the grant of power to the for.er )>A, now >4FRB, over the i.position of fines to those which do
not e9ceed ten thousand pesos, it is clear that the power in relation to cri.inal lia=ilit- .entioned in the i..ediatel- succeeding provision, to
i.pose, upon conviction, fines a=ove ten thousand pesos andNor i.prison.ent, was not conferred on it& 'ection 12, unli:e 'ection 18,
conspicuousl- does not state that it is the 06A that .a- i.pose the punish.ent specified therein&
)ot having =een specificall- conferred with power to hear and decide cases which are cri.inal in nature, as well as to i.pose penalties
therefor, we find that the >4FRB has no 5urisdiction over cri.inal actions arising fro. violations of (D 25+&
/n the other hand, B( Big& 122 statesE
'ec& 20& ,urisdiction in Cri.inal Cases& $ Regional 8rial Courts shall e9ercise e9clusive original 5urisdiction in all cri.inal cases not within the
e9clusive 5urisdiction of an- court, tri=unal or =od-, e9cept those now falling under the e9clusive and concurrent 5urisdiction of the
'andigan=a-an which shall hereafter =e e9clusivel- ta:en cogni@ance of =- the latter&
Based on the a=ove$Auoted provision, it is the R8C that has 5urisdiction over cri.inal cases arising fro. violations of (D 25+&
6n the present case, the affidavit$co.plaint21! alleges the violation of 'ection 21 o?8D 25+ and as:s for the institution of a cri.inal action
against respondent Cap, as (resident of (ri.etown& 8he /ffice of the Cit- (rosecutor found pro=a=le cause for the filing of an;6nfor.ation for
the su=5ect offense& 8he D/, .ade no reversal of such finding of pro=a=le cause& 6nstead, it directed the withdrawal of the infor.ation on the
erroneous pre.ise that it is the >4FRB which has 5urisdiction over the case& >owever, as a=ove$discussed, and contrar- to the resolution of
the 'ecretar- of ,ustice, it is not the >4FRB =ut the R8C that has 5urisdiction to hear the said cri.inal action&
<>3R3?/R3, the petition is %RA)83D& 8he assailed /cto=er 2, 2002 and ,anuar- 11, 2001 /rders of the Regional 8rial Court of 4apu$4apu
Cit-, Branch 54, are R3G3R'3D and '38 A'6D3& 8he said Court is D6R3C83D to proceed with the arraign.ent of the respondent and to
hear the case with dispatch&
'/ /RD3R3D&
$OVENAL OUANO, %&'&'(n!, vs. PGTT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION and HON. $UDGE RAMON G. CODILLA, $R.,
!s%(ndn&s.
D 3 C 6 ' 6 / )
'A)D/GA4$%F863RR3R, ,&E
(%88 6nternational 6nvest.ent Corporation "(%88#, respondent, is a corporation dul- organi@ed under e9isting laws, with address at CA'C/
Bldg&, 0& ,& Cuenco Ave&, Ce=u Cit-&
/n Dece.=er 11, 122+, (%88 filed with the Regional 8rial Court "R8C#, Branch 20, Ce=u Cit-, a verified co.plaint against ,ovenal /uano,
petitioner, doc:eted as Civil Case )o& C3B$ 21112, entitled J(%88 6)83R)A86/)A4 6)G3'803)8 C/R(/RA86/), (laintiff, vs& ,FG3)A4
/FA)/, Defendant,K for JRecover- of /wnership and (ossession of Real (ropert- and Da.ages&K1! 6n its co.plaint, (%88 alleged that it is
the owner of 4ot )os& 1$10, Bloc: 2 of the 'unn-.eade Crescent 'u=division located at (it$os, 8ala.=an, Ce=u Cit-& 'o.eti.e in /cto=er of
122*, (%88 found that /uano uprooted the concrete .onu.ents of the said lots, plowed the. and planted corn thereon& Despite (%88Bs
de.and that he vacate the lots and restore the. to their original condition, /uano refused, clai.ing he is the owner and lawful possessor of
the 180 sAuare .eters he occupied& Due to /uanoBs wrongful act, (%88 was deprived of the use of its propert- and suffered da.ages in the
a.ount of (100,000&00 a -ear& 4i:ewise, (%88 was constrained to file the su=5ect action and hired the services of his counsel for
(100,000&00& (%88 pra-edE
O<>3R3?/R3, in view of all the foregoing, it is .ost respectfull- pra-ed that after due notice and hearing, 5udg.ent =e rendered ordering
defendant ",ovenal /uano# to vacate the pre.ises and restore the lots to their original conditionL pa- plaintiff "(%88# (100,000&00 as
da.ages per -ear, =eginning /cto=er, 122* until he shall have vacated the pre.ises and restored the lots to their original conditionL pa-
(100,000&00 as attorne-;s feesL and pa- (50,000&00 as e9penses of litigation&
O(laintiff pra-s for such other reliefs and re.edies, 5ust and eAuita=le under the pre.ises&O2!
/n ?e=ruar- 5, 1228, /uano filed a .otion to dis.iss the co.plaint on the ground that it is the 0unicipal 8rial Court "08C#, not the R8C,
which has 5urisdiction over it considering that the assessed value of the lots involved is onl- (2,210, as indicated in the latest ta9 declaration,
1! citing 'ection 12 "paragraph 2# and 'ection 11 "paragraph 1# of Batas (a.=ansa Bilang 122 "8he ,udiciar- Reorgani@ation Act of 1280#, as
a.ended =- Repu=lic Act )o& +*21&4!
6n its opposition to /uanoBs .otion, (%88 contends that the R8C has 5urisdiction since the .ar:et value of the lots is (42,+*0&00&5! Besides,
the co.plaint is not onl- an action for recover- of ownership and possession of real propert-, =ut also for da.ages e9ceeding (100,000&00,
over which clai. the R8C has e9clusive original 5urisdiction under 'ection 12 "paragraph 8# of the sa.e law&
/n 0arch *, 1228, the R8C, presided =- ,udge Ra.on %& Codilla, ,r&, issued an /rder den-ing the .otion to dis.iss, holding thatE
J8his court =elieves that this court has 5urisdiction to tr- this case considering that the real properties consist of ten parcels of land in a
su=division and the court ta:es note that there is a discrepanc- so.ewhere =- the /ffice of the Cit- Assessor in the Assess.ent of the parcels
of land for onl- less than (2,000&00 and that the govern.ent is ver- .uch at a loss =- these unrealistic valuation&K*!
/uano filed a .otion for reconsideration =ut was li:ewise denied =- the R8C in its /rder dated 0a- 2+, 1228& 8he trial court ruled it has
5urisdiction over the case =ecause J"i#t is of 5udicial :nowledge that the real properties situated in Ce=u Cit- co..and a higher valuation than
those indicated in the ta9 declaration& 8he o=servation of plaintiffBs "(%88Bs# counsel as to the issue on da.ages is li:ewise sustained
considering that, =eing a corporation, it .a- have incurred da.ages in the for. of unreali@ed profits&K+!
>ence the present petition for certiorari filed =- /uano under Rule *5 of the 122+ Rules of Civil (rocedure, as a.ended, assailing the /rders
of respondent 5udge dated 0arch *, 1228 and 0a- 2+, 1228 as having =een issued with grave a=use of discretion a.ounting to lac: or e9cess
of 5urisdiction&
At the outset, it is necessar- to stress that a direct recourse to this Court is highl- i.proper, for it violates the esta=lished polic- of strict
o=servance of the 5udicial hierarch- of courts&8! <e need to reiterate, for the guidance of petitioner, that this CourtBs original 5urisdiction to
issue a writ of certiorari "as well as prohi=ition, .anda.us, Auo warranto, ha=eas corpus and in5unction# is concurrent with the Court of
Appeals "CA#, as in the present case, and with the R8Cs in proper cases within their respective regions&2! >owever, this concurrence of
5urisdiction does not grant a part- see:ing an- of the e9traordinar- writs the a=solute freedo. to file his petition with the court of his choice&
8his Court is a court of last resort, and .ust so re.ain if it is to satisfactoril- perfor. the functions assigned to it =- the Constitution and
i..e.orial tradition&10! 8he hierarch- of courts deter.ines the appropriate foru. for such petitions& 8hus, petitions for the issuance of such
e9traordinar- writs against the first level "JinferiorK# courts should =e filed with the R8C, and those against the latter, with the CA&11! A direct
invocation of this CourtBs original 5urisdiction to issue these writs should =e allowed onl- when there are special and i.portant reasons therefor,
clearl- and specificall- set out in the petition& 8his is the esta=lished polic-& 6t is a polic- that is necessar- to prevent inordinate de.ands upon
this CourtBs ti.e and attention which are =etter devoted to those .atters within its e9clusive 5urisdiction, and to prevent further over$crowding
of its doc:et&12! Fnfortunatel-, the instant petition does not allege an- special and co.pelling reason to 5ustif- a direct recourse to this Court&
>owever, we dee. it .ore appropriate and practical to resolve the controvers- in order to avoid further dela-, =ut onl- in this instance&
8he lone issue for our resolution is whether the R8C has 5urisdiction over Civil Case )o& C3B$21112&
8he co.plaint see:s to recover fro. private respondent the ownership and possession of the lots in Auestion and the pa-.ent of da.ages&
'ince the action involves ownership and possession of real propert-, the 5urisdiction over the su=5ect .atter of the clai. is deter.ined =- the
assessed value, not the .ar:et value, thereof, pursuant to Batas (a.=ansa Blg& 122, as a.ended =- R&A& +*21& 'ection 11 "paragraph 1# of
the said law providesE
J'ec& 11& ,urisdiction of 0etropolitan 8rial Courts, 0unicipal 8rial Courts and 0unicipal Circuit 8rial Courts in Civil Cases& S 0etropolitan 8rial
Courts, 0unicipal 8rial Courts and 0unicipal Circuit 8rial Courts shall e9erciseE
9 9 9&
"1# 39clusive original 5urisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real propert-, or an- interest therein where the
assessed value of the propert- or interest therein does not e9ceed 8went- 8housand (esos "(20,000&00# or, in civil actions in 0etro 0anila,
where such assessed value does not e9ceed ?ift- 8housand (esos "(50,000&00# e9clusive of interest, da.ages of whatever :ind, attorne-Bs
fees, litigation e9penses and costsE (rovided, 8hat in cases of land not declared for ta9ation purposes, the value of such propert- shall =e
deter.ined =- the assessed value of the ad5acent lots&
9 9 9&K "3.phasis ours#
4i:ewise, 'ection 12 "paragraph 2# of the sa.e law readsE
J'ec& 12& ,urisdiction in civil cases& $ 8he Regional 8rial Court shall e9ercise e9clusive original 5urisdictionE
9 9 9&
"2# 6n all civil actions, which involve the title to, or possession of, real propert-, or an- interest therein, where the assessed value of the
propert- involved e9ceeds 8went- 8housand (esos "(20,000&00# or, for civil actions in 0etro 0anila, where such value e9ceeds ?ift-
8housand (esos "(50,000&00# e9cept actions for forci=le entr- into and unlawful detainer of lands or =uildings, original 5urisdiction over which
is conferred upon the 0etropolitan 8rial Courts, 0unicipal 8rial Courts, and 0unicipal Circuit 8rial CourtsL
9 9 9&K "3.phasis ours#
6t is undisputed that the assessed value of the propert- involved, as shown =- the corresponding ta9 declaration, is onl- (2,210&00& As such,
the co.plaint is well within the 08CBs (20,000&00 5urisdictional li.it&
8he finding of respondent 5udge that the value of the lots is higher than that indicated in the ta9 declaration and that, therefore, the R8C has
5urisdiction over the case is highl- speculative& 6t is ele.entar- that the ta9 declaration indicating the assessed value of the propert- en5o-s the
presu.ption of regularit- as it has =een issued =- the proper govern.ent agenc-&
Respondent 5udge further held that since the co.plaint also see:s the recover- of da.ages e9ceeding (100,000&00, then it is within the
co.petence of the R8C pursuant to 'ection 12 "paragraph 8# of Batas (a.=ansa Blg& 122, as a.ended =- R&A& +*21, which statesE
J'3C& 12& ,urisdiction in civil cases& S Regional 8rial Courts shall e9ercise e9clusive original 5urisdictionE
9 9 9
J"8# 6n all other cases in which the de.and, e9clusive of interest, da.ages of whatever :ind, attorne-Bs fees, litigation e9penses, and costs or
the value of the propert- in controvers- e9ceeds /ne >undred 8housand (esos "(100,000&00# or, in such other cases in 0etro 0anila, where
the de.and, e9clusive of the a=ove .entioned ite.s e9ceeds 8wo hundred thousand pesos "(200,000&00#&K "3.phasis ours#
8he a=ove provision does not appl- to the instant case& 6t is applica=le onl- to Jall other casesK other than an action involving title to, or
possession of real propert- in which the assessed value is the controlling factor in deter.ining the courtBs 5urisdiction& Besides, the sa.e
provision e9plicitl- e9cludes fro. the deter.ination of the 5urisdictional a.ount the de.and for Jinterest, da.ages of whatever :ind, attorne-Bs
fees, litigation e9penses, and costsK& 8he e9clusion of such da.ages is reiterated in 'ection 11, paragraph 1 of the sa.e Batas (a.=ansa
Blg& 122, as a.ended, Auoted earlier& 8he said da.ages are .erel- incidental to, or a conseAuence of, the .ain cause of action for recover-
of ownership and possession of real propert-& 6n this connection, this Court issued Ad.inistrative Circular )o& 02$24 setting the guidelines in
the i.ple.entation of R&A& +*21& (aragraph 2 statesE
J2& 8he e9clusion of the ter. Tda.ages of whatever :indB in deter.ining the 5urisdictional a.ount under 'ection 12 "8# and 'ection 11 "1# of
B&(& Blg& 122, as a.ended =- R&A& +*21, applies to cases where the da.ages are .erel- incidental to or a conseAuence of the .ain cause of
action& >owever, in cases where the clai. for da.ages is the .ain cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the a.ount of such clai.
shall =e considered in deter.ining the 5urisdiction of the court&K "3.phasis ours#
<e thus find that in issuing the assailed orders den-ing petitionerBs .otion to dis.iss, thus ta:ing cogni@ance of the case, the R8C co..itted
grave a=use of discretion&
<>3R3?/R3, the instant petition is %RA)83D& 8he assailed /rders issued =- respondent R8C on 0arch *, 1228 and 0a- 2+, 1228 in Civil
Case )o& C3B$21112 are '38 A'6D3& Accordingl-, the co.plaint is ordered D6'06''3D&
'/ /RD3R3D&