Civil Procedure| Atty. Fernandez| Case Digests | J.N.

Salmorin v. Zaldivar The fact of receipt without an agreed system of

G.R. No. 169691 sharing does not ipso facto create a tenancy.
Facts:
Nyepes v. CA
Herein respondent is the owner of the
land administered by herein petitioner. G.R. No. 141524
Petitioner was the designated administrator of
Facts:
the said lot but there are certain conditions that
should be followed one was the tilling of the Petitioners filed for annulment of
vacant lot, this terms were not followed by the judgment and titles of land. Later the court
petitioner which urged herein petitioner to dismissed petitioners’ complaint on the ground
have him ejected from the lot. Upon ejectment of prescription.
petitioner refused to do so which prompted
Petitioners allegedly received a copy of
respondent to file a case of unlawful detainer.
the order of dismissal on March 3, 1998 and on
Petitioner raised the defense of tenancy
the 15th day which was March 18, 1998 they
relationship which was upheld by the RTC but
filed an MR. Said MR was dismissed by the trial
was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Thus,
court on July 1 of the same year which was
this petition was filed.
received by the petitioners on July 22, 1998.
Issue:
Thus, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal but
Whether or Not MCTC can take
were denied due to the lapse on the filing
cognizance of the case?
period. This prompted petitioners to file
Held:
certiorari and mandamus via rule 65 arguing
The court ruled on the affirmative.
that the 15 day reglementary period started
Under Sec. 32 of B.P. 129 amended by R.A. 7691
only on July 22 since the final order was
the exclusive jurisdiction for unlawful detainer
received on the said day.
case and forcible entry and unlawful detainer
case is lodged on the MCTC, MeTC, and MTC. Issue:
If it is an agrarian case and involves
Whether or Not petitioners filed their
agrarian lands, the DARAB shall take cognizance
appeal on time?
of the case. Furthermore, jurisdiction of a court
over the subject matter is determined by the Held:
material allegations presented.
The court answered on the affirmative.
To answer the defense of tenancy, mere
The dismissal of the final order on July 1 should
allegation does not automatically deprive MCTC
be deemed as final order since it was what
of its jurisdiction, for tenancy to exist these
ended the issue raised there and the receipt of
requisites should exist:
the respondent of the said final order on July 22
1.) Parties are landowner and Tenant should be the reckoning point of the 15 day
2.) Subject is an agricultural land reglementary period.
3.) There is consent by the landowner
The court deems it practical to allow a
4.) Purpose is for agricultural production
fresh period of 15 days within which to file the
5.) Personal cultivation
notice of appeal, counted from the receipt of
6.) Sharing of harvest
the order dismissing a motion for new trial or
MR.

1
Civil Procedure| Atty. Fernandez| Case Digests | J.N.
However, such should be distinguished from
Rule 41 sec. 3 wherein there is a disjunctive
word “or” which signifies dissociation and
independence of one thing from the other.
Thus, within the said rule it may be filed either
within 15 days from notice of judgment or 15
days from notice of final order.
Nota Bene:
* Fresh period rule is only essential when MR is
availed of.
* Fresh Period rule does not apply to Rule 64
since this is governed and within the ambit of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Heirs of Jose Fernando v. De Belen
G.R. No. 186366
Facts:
Herein petitioners being the heirs were
about to partition the disputed lot but the lone
hindrance was that herein defendant refuses to
vacate and further challenges the rights of the
heirs towards the said land. This prompted the
petitioners to file a case against the defendant
for recovery of property. Instead of filing an
answer defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and assailed that the value of
the said lot has not been indicated on the
complaint. Thus, an amended complaint was
filed but then again bill of particulars was
availed of by the defendant who specifically
questioned the legal basis of the complaint, an
answer was also filed by the defendant assailing
that they were rightfully in possession of the lot
evidenced by a deed of absolute sale.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner
which ordered the cancellation of the deed of
absolute sale and the reconveyance of the said
property. This was reversed by the Court of
Appeals upon appeal by the defendant assailing
the defense of lack of jurisdiction, since the
petitioners failed to state the assessed value of
the subject property. Hence, this petition
seeking the reversal of the aforementioned
decision.
Issue:
Whether or Not the RTC acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Held:
The court ruled on the affirmative.
General rule is that the jurisdiction of the court
may be questioned at any stage of the
proceedings. This defense may be interposed at
any time, during appeal or at any time after
final judgment.
The rule that the Court of Appeals
grounded its argument is RA. 7691 amending
B.P. Blg 129 which states that (Sec. 19) RTC shall
have exclusive jurisdiction when subject of
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
and those concerning real property which has
an amount not exceeding 20,000 or in metro
manila 50,000.00, wherein the petitioners really
did not indicate the value of said lot which
would quite affect the jurisdiction of the RTC.
However, a close perusal of the facts the
respondent created its own trap when it
presented the deed of absolute sale and the
purchase price which was 60,000 pesos which
indicated the value of the property.
Lastly, the defendant did not raise such
error on jurisdiction after several rulings of the
trial court wherein they could have instituted a
separate action for certiorari to correct errors of
jurisdiction instead the respondents actively
participated on the trial wherein the petitioners
proved their ownership on the said land. Thus,
the doctrine in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy finds its
application on this case stating that “While it is
true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time,
"this rule presupposes that estoppel has not
2
Civil Procedure| Atty. Fernandez| Case Digests | J.N.

supervened." In the instant case, respondent

actively participated in all stages of the
proceedings before the trial court and invoked
its authority by asking for an affirmative relief.
Clearly, respondent is estopped from
challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction,
especially when an adverse judgment has been
rendered”. The Court has consistently upheld
the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be
assailed at any stage, a litigant who participated
in the court proceedings by filing pleadings and
presenting his evidence cannot later on
question the trial court’s jurisdiction when
judgement unfavorable to him is rendered.