Remedial Law Case Digests 1z5m4h

PHIL. VETERANS BANK V. CA G.R. No. 132767 18 Jan. 2000 Facts: Four parcels of land owned by Philippine Veterans Bank was taken by DAR pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Petitioner contended that DAR adjudicators have no jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for the taking of lands under CARP because such jurisdiction is vested in the RTC. Issue: Whether the DAR or RTC has jurisdiction Held: DAR has jurisdiction. There is nothing contradictory between the DAR’s primary jurisdiction over “agrarian reform matters” and exclusive original jurisdiction over “all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,” which includes the determination of questions of just compensation, and the RTC’s “original and exclusive jurisdiction” over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to the landowner. In accordance with settled principles of istrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an istrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under CARP, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts. DUCAT V. CA G.R. No. 119652 20 Jan. 2000

Facts: Petitioner Ventura O. Ducat lost in a civil case. There was already execution of judgment. The trial court denied his Motion to Annul the Execution Sale, Motion to Reconsider, and Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Implementation of the Writ of Possession. Instead of filing a petition for certiorari, petitioner presented before the trial court a Manifestation and Motion to Set Parameters of Computation. The trial then issued an Alias Writ of Possession against Ducat which he questioned. Issue: Whether Petitioner can validly question the court’s authority to issue the writ Held: No. It is too late for Ducat to question the subject order of the court. He could have taken recourse to the CA but he did not. Instead, he manifested acquiescence to the said order by seeking parameters before the trial court. If the parties acquiesced in submitting an issue for determination by the trial court, they are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the same court to pas upon the issue. LLORENTE V. 122297-98 19 Jan. 2000

SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R.

Nos.

Facts: CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE, JR., municipal mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of RA 3019. Pending the case, Congress enacted RA 7975, limiting the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. A then contended that by virtue of

RA 7975, the Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction over his case. Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan was divested of jurisdiction Held: No. To determine whether the official is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, reference should be made to RA 6758 and the Index of Occupational Services, position Titles, and Salary Grades. A municipal mayor is classified under Salary Grade 27. Thus, the case against A is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. MARQUEZ V. COMELEC [G.R. No. 127318 25 Aug. 1999 Facts: Francis King L. Marquez won in the SK elections. An election protest was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court, impugning the election of petitioner on the ground that the latter is disqualified by age to the office of SK Chairman. Marquez aassailed the jurisdiction of the MTC over the case. Issue: Whether the MTC has jurisdiction Held: Yes. Any contest relating to the election of SK (including the Chairman) – whether pertaining to their eligibility or the manner of their election – is cognizable by the MTCs, MCTCs and MeTCs. Before proclamation, cases concerning eligibility of SK officers and are

cognizable by the Election Officer as provided in Sec. 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824. After election and proclamation, the same cases become quo warranto cases cognizable by MTCs, MCTCs and MeTCs. SAURA V. SAURA G.R. No. 136159. 1 Sept. 1999 Facts: The parties in this case are related to one another by blood. Petitoners Macrina Saura Et al filed a case against Ramon G. Saura, Jr. and Carmencita S. Millan, with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Petitioners also also filed a civil case for the annulment of a sale against respondents before the RTC. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction of the trial court. Issue: Whether jurisdiction

the

SEC

or

the

RTC

has

Held: The RTC has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction of the SEC is determined by a concurrence of 2 elements: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy. IN this case, the complaint for annulment of the sale is an ordinary civil action, which is beyond the limited jurisdiction of the SEC.