ELISA ANGELES vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 178733, September 15, 2014
Facts:
A complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage, foreclosure sale, reconveyance and damages as Civil Case No. 69213 was filed by spouses Juan and Anatalia Coronel (the Coronels) against herein petitioner Elisa Angeles and several others. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Coronels. Angeles filed a notice of appeal while the Coronels filed a motion for execution on April 3, 2005 judgment pending appeal which was denied by the trial court. Angeles appeal to the CA was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 86451. In a November 15, 2005 Order, the trial court directed that the entire record of Civil Case No. 69213 be transmitted to the CA for appropriate action. In a February 1, 2006 Order, the trial court reconsidered its October 19, 2005 Order and thus granted the Coronels motion for execution pending appeal. A Writ of Execution Pending Appeal was thus issued on February 16, 2006. On February 27, 2006, the record of Civil Case No. 69213 was transmitted to the CA. On March 9, 2006, petitioner was evicted from the subject property as a result of the enforcement of the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal. Issue: Whether the trial court has the authority to grant the execution pending appeal. Ruling:
Yes. The trial court had the authority to grant execution pending appeal on February 1, 2006 and issue the writ on February 15, 2006. The record of Civil Case No. 69213 was transmitted to the CA only on February 27, 2006.Prior to the transmittal of the original record; the trial court may order execution pending appeal. The residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
Villareal et. al vs. People G.R. No. 151258 December 1, 2014 Facts:
Leonardo "Lenny" Villa joined (Aquila Fraternity). Hazing was pre-requisite in joining the fraternity. After the initiation Lenny was severely injured which lead to his death. A criminal case for homicide was filed against the 35 Aquilans in Branch 121 of RTC Caloocan. Four of the accused (Tecson, et. al.) were found to be guilty of homicide by the trial court but was reduced to crime of slight physical injuries and sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor by the Court of Appeals. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ruled that they should be liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide instead. In Motions for Clarification or Reconsideration, Tecson et. al. clarified the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court to their criminal liability. According to Tecson et. al., they immediately applied for probation after the CA rendered its Decision lowering their criminal liability from the crime of homicide, which carries a non-probationable sentence, to slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable sentence. Hence, they have already been discharged from their criminal liability and the cases against them closed and terminated by virtue of their granted Applications for Probation in Branch 130 of RTC Caloocan for which the terms therein are already been complied with. Issue: Whether Tecson et.al properly filed their application for probation in Branch 130 of RTC Caloocan? Ruling: No. The applicants are not at liberty to choose the forum in which they may seek probation. The probation proceedings were premised on an unwarranted exercise of authority hence the RTC Branch 130 never acquired jurisdiction over the case. The records of the case were still with the CA when RTC Branch 130 granted the probation applications. Jurisdiction over a case is lodged with the court in which the criminal action has been properly instituted. If a party appeals the trial court’s judgment or final order, jurisdiction is transferred to the appellate court. The execution of the decision is thus stayed insofar as the appealing party is concerned. The court of origin then loses jurisdiction over the entire case the moment the other party’s time to appeal has expired. Any residual jurisdiction of the court of origin shall cease – including the authority to order execution pending appeal – the moment the complete records of the case are transmitted to the appellate court. Consequently, it is the appellate court that shall have the authority to wield the power to hear, try, and decide the case before it, as well as to enforce its decisions and resolutions appurtenant thereto. That power and authority shall remain with the appellate court until it finally disposes of the case. Jurisdiction cannot be ousted by any subsequent event, even if the nature of the incident would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first place.
Supapo vs. Spouses de Jesus G.R. No. 198356
Facts:
The Spouses Supapo filed a complaint for accion publiciana against Roberto and Susan de Jesus with the MeTC of Caloocan City. The complaint sought to compel the respondents to vacate a piece of land located in Quezon City and registered under petitioner's name. The land has an assessed value of 39, 980 pesos. Issue: Whether the MTC has jurisdiction? Ruling:
Yes. Under BP 129, the jurisdiction of the RTC over actions involving title to or possession of real property is plenary. However, RA 7691 granted the MeTC, MTC and MCTC the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear actions where the assessed value of the property does not exceed 20, 000 pesos to 50, 000 pesos if the property is located in Metro Manila. Jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property is now determined by its assessed value. It is its fair market value multiplied by the assessment level. In the present case, the Spouses Supapo alleged that the assessed value of the subject lot located in Metro Manila is 39, 980 pesos. Thus, the MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint for accion publiciana.
De Vera vs. De Jesus G.R. No. 179457
June 22, 2015
Facts:
Petitioners (De Vera) filed a complaint for reconveyance of ownership or possession against the respondents. They alleged that they are the owners of land denominated as Lot. 7303. However, the petitioners discovered that their lots were already covered by Free Patent Titles in the names of Respondents (De Jesus). Respondents alleged that the MTC has no jurisdiction as the combined assessed value of the property is more than ₱20,000.00; the case is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19, paragraph 2 of BP 129. Issue: Whether the MTC has jurisdiction? Ruling:
No. Under BP 129, jurisdiction in civil cases, the Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. The petitioners failed to indicate the assessed value of the subject real property. At any rate, based on the Tax Declarations attached to their complaint, the disputed land located in Bolinao, Pangasinan, has a total assessed value of ₱54,370.00. Therefore, the RTC has jurisdiction.
