Editha

Padlan v Elenita Dinglasan and Felicisimo Dinglasan

Date: Mar 20, 2013

Ponente: J. Peralta

Facts:

o Elenita was the registered owner of a parcel of land designated as Lot 625
of the Limay Cadastre with an aggregate area of 82,972 sq m
o While on board a jeepney, Elenita’s mother Lillia, had a conversation with
Maura regarding the sale of the land
o Believing that she was a real estate agent, Lillia borrowed from Elenita
the TCT and gave it to Maura
o Maura subdivided the lots A-O under Elenita and her husband Felicisimo
o Through the falsified deed, Maura sold it to diff. buyers
o Lot K was sold to Lorna Ong and a few months after sold to Editha Padlan
for 4,000 pesos
o When Elenita and Felicisimo found out, they demanded to surrender the
possession but to no avail
o Summons was serverd to petitioner through her mother Anita Padlan
o Filed before the RTC Balanga Bataan for the cancellation of the certificate
o On jan 17 2000 Editha filed through counsel an opposition to declare
defendant in default with motion to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction
over the person of defendant
o She argues No jurisdiction over her person as the substituted
service was through her mother and not her directly
o She has been residing in Japan after she married a hapon and
comes home to PH once every 2 years
o The brother testified and submitted copies of passport etc of sister but
RTC denied motion and declared Editha in default. Trial ensued
o RTC- declared Editha buyer in good faith – dismiss
o Elenita filed before CA and reversed RTC – cancelled TCT of Editha
o Buyer should have conducted further inquiry before buying as
there is bad faith from Lorna because 5000 sqm for only 4,000
o TCTs fraudulently issued
o Editha filed MR for lack of merit and failure to acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case and person of Editha
o CA denied motion
o CA concluded that the rationale for the exception made in Tijam v
Sibonghanoy was present
o When RTC denied Editha’s motion, to dismiss, she did not move for
a reconsideration nor availed of any remedies provided by the
rules. She was silent and brought it back again when adverse
decision was rendered against her

Issues:

WON Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case (NO)


WON Editha was a buyer in good faith and for value (DID NOT ANSWER)

Held:

o Editha argues that sec 15 of Rule 14 states, when the defendant does not
reside in the pilippines and the subject of the action is the property within
the Philippines, service may be effected out of the Philippines by personal
service or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Instead it
was given to the mother. Thus, no jurisdiction over the person
o Amount alleged on the property was only 4,000 pesos

SC:

o BP 128 sec 33 (3) RTC value of property exceeds 20,000 pesos or 50,000
pesos in metro manila. Below is the lower courts
o Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter
of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the
complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as well
as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by
the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all
or some of the claims asserted therein
o What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The
averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to
be consulted
o The action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the
lawful owner of the subject lot, jurisdiction over which is determined by
the assessed value of such lot
o The only basis for the value of the land was the 4,000 pesos which was the
amount allegedly sold for as there is not even a tax declaration. Thus, MTC
and not RTC has jurisdiction over the action. All proceedings in RTC are
null and void
o GRANTED