Facts:
Dinglasan was the
registered owner of a parcel of land. Dinglasan's mother met Maura in a jeepney
and believing Maura to be a real estate agent, she borrowed respondent’s
owner's copy of the land title and gave it to Maura. Maura then subdivided the property into
several lots and through a falsified deed of sale bearing the forged signature
of Dinglasan and her husband Maura was able to sell the lots to different
buyers including Lorna who later caused the issuance of a Transfer Certificate
of Title. A few months later Lorna sold the land to petitioner Padlan for only
4000 pesos and a new TCT was issued in Padlan’s favor.
Respondent then filed
a case before the RTC of Balanga, Bataan for the cancellation of
petitioner's title. Summons was served to petitioner's mother.
Respondents moved
to declare petitioner in default and prayed that they be allowed to present
evidence ex parte. Petitioner, through counsel, filed an Opposition to
Declare Defendant in Default with Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of
Jurisdiction Over the Person of Defendant. Petitioner claimed that the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over her, because the summons was not
validly served upon her person, but only by means of substituted service
through her mother and that she has long been residing in Japan.
RTC issued an Order denied petitioner’s motion
to dismiss and declared her in default. After trial, the RTC
rendered a Decision finding petitioner to be a buyer in good faith and
consequently dismissed the complaint.
Respondent appealed
to the Court of Appeals which reversed
the decision of the RTC and ruled in favor of the respondent. The CA opined
that although a purchaser is not expected to go beyond the title, based on the
circumstances surrounding the sale, petitioner should have conducted further
inquiry before buying the disputed property. The fact that Lorna bought a 5,000-square-meter
property for only ₱4,000.00 and selling it after four months for the same
amount should have put petitioner on guard.
Petitioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner argued that not only did the complaint lacks merit, the lower court
failed to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and the
person of the petitioner. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration. The
CA concluded that the rationale for the exception made in the landmark case of
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy was present in the case. It reasoned that when the RTC
denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner neither moved for a reconsideration of the order nor did she avail
of any remedy provided by the Rules. Instead, she kept silent and only became
interested in the case again when the CA rendered a decision adverse to her
claim.
Issues:
1) Whether or not the
honorable court has jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
2) Whether or not the honorable
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
3) Whether or not
petitioner is a buyer in good faith and for value.
Petitioner contends
that pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, when the
defendant does not reside in the Philippines and the subject of the action is
property within the Philippines of the defendant, service may be effected out
of the Philippines by personal service or by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation. In this case, summons was served only by substituted
service to her mother. Hence, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her
person.
Also, petitioner
posits that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, considering
that from the complaint, it can be inferred that the value of the property was
only ₱4,000.00, which was the amount alleged by respondents that the property
was sold to petitioner by Lorna. Finally, petitioner stresses that she was a
buyer in good faith. It was Maura who defrauded the respondents by selling the
property to Lorna without their authority.
Decision:
The Court found merit
in the petition since the complaint was filed by respondent in 1999 when BP 129
was already amended by RA7691 which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTCs. Under
RA 7691,
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 value exceeds Fifty Thousand
Pesos (₱50,000.00) original
jurisdiction is conferred upon the MTCs.
In this case, the only
basis of valuation of the subject property is the value alleged in the
complaint that the lot was sold by Lorna to petitioner in the amount of
₱4,000.00. No tax declaration was even presented that would show the valuation
of the subject property. Since the amount alleged in the Complaint by
respondents for the disputed lot is only ₱4,000.00, the MTC and not the RTC has
jurisdiction over the action. Therefore, the Court declared that all
proceedings in the RTC were null and void.
No comments:
Post a Comment