Access over 20 million homework & study documents

199233099_remedial_law_case_survey_all_subjects_1999.doc

Content type
User Generated
Rating
Showing Page:
1/69
REMEDI AL L AW
DIGE STS
ATENE O BAR O P E R ATI O NS 2 0 01
1
JURISDICTION
JUAN V. PEOPLE
18 Jan.2000
Facts: A et al., were charged before the RTC with an election offense punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years. They argued that the RTC has no jurisdiction over their
cases since the penalty for the offense charged does not exceed 6 years.
Issue: Whether MTC or RTC has jurisdiction
Held: RTC has jurisdiction. Pursuant to Sec.32 BP 129, as amended by Section 2 of RA 7691,
the jurisdiction of first-level courts- the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC- does not cover those criminal
cases which by specific provisions of law are cognizable by the RTC, regardless of the penalty
prescribed therefore.
PHIL. VETERANS BANK V. CA
18 Jan. 2000
Facts: P’s land was taken by DAR pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. P
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
administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative 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
20 Jan. 2000
Facts: D 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, D presented
before the trial court a Manifestation and Motion to Set Parameters of Computation. The trial then
issued an Alias Writ of Possession against D which he questioned.
Issue: Whether D can validly question the court’s authority to issue the writ
Held: No. It is too late for D to question the subject order of the court. D 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. ANDIGANBAYAN
19 Jan. 2000

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/69
R E MEDI AL L AW
DIGE STS
ATENE O BAR O P E R ATI O NS 2 0 01
2
Facts: A, a mayor, 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
25 Aug. 1999
Facts: D won in the SK elections. P filed an election protest before the MTC. D assailed the
jurisdiction of the MTC over the case.
Issue: Whether the MTC has jurisdiction
Held: Yes. Any contest relating to the election of SK members (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 members
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
1 Sept. 1999
Facts: P filed a case against D with the SEC. P also filed a civil case for the annulment of a sale
against D before the RTC. D filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction of the trial
court.
Issue: Whether the SEC or the RTC has jurisdiction
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.
BENAVIDEZ V. CA
6 Sept. 1999
Facts: P filed a forcible entry case against D. D argued that he owned the property. D surmised
that since the issue of ownership is involved and only in resolving it can the issue of possession
be finally settled, the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
Issue: Whether the MTC retains jurisdiction
Held: Yes. Following B. P. 129, the MTC now retains jurisdiction over ejectment cases even if
the question of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership
provided that such issue of ownership shall be resolved only for the purpose of determining
possession.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/69

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 69 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
JURISDICTION JUAN V. PEOPLE 18 Jan.2000 Facts: A et al., were charged before the RTC with an election offense punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years. They argued that the RTC has no jurisdiction over their cases since the penalty for the offense charged does not exceed 6 years. Issue: Whether MTC or RTC has jurisdiction Held: RTC has jurisdiction. Pursuant to Sec.32 BP 129, as amended by Section 2 of RA 7691, the jurisdiction of first-level courts- the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC- does not cover those criminal cases which by specific provisions of law are cognizable by the RTC, regardless of the penalty prescribed therefore. PHIL. VETERANS BANK V. CA 18 Jan. 2000 Facts: P’s land was taken by DAR pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. P 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 administrative l ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4