Posted by: Von Derek on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Sometime in the year 1987, Elizabeth Monzon, the owner of the adjacent parcel of land being occupied by Darmag Maslag, informed Maslag that the respective parcels of land being claimed by them now be titled. A suggestion was, thereafter made, that those who were interested to have their lands titled, will contribute to a common fund for the surveying and subsequent titling of the land.
Since Maslag had, for so long, yearned for a title to the land she occupies, she contributed to the amount being requested by Elizabeth Monzon.
A subdivision survey was made and in the survey, the respective areas of both were defined and delimited - all for purposes of titling.
But alas, despite the assurance of subdivided titles, when the title was finally issued by the Registry of Deeds, the same was only in the name of Elizabeth Monzon and William Geston. The name of Darma Maslag was fraudulently, deliberately and in bad faith omitted. Thus, the title to the property to the extent of 18, 295 square meters, was titled solely in the name of Elizabeth Monzon.
Darmag Maslag filed an action for nullity of OCT against Elizabeth Monzon in the MTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. To which the court found Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT.
Monzon appealed to the RTC and upon going to the record, the court decided that the MTC has no jurisdiction, it held further that it will take cognizance to the case pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, and asked both parties to submit additional evidence to be tried therein. Both parties, however, did not submit additional evidence.
After trial, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and ordered Maslag to turn over the possession of the 4,415 square meter land with an amount of Php 12, 400 she presently occupies to Monzon. To which Maslag appealed to the Court of Appeals the decision of the RTC reversing the MTC pronouncement. The CA dismissed Maslag's appeal as it found that the proper remedy is a Petition for Review under Rule 42, and not a ordinary appeal. Maslag filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was subsequently denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
HELD:
Yes. There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of the fact of law. The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions.
As discussed above, the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; hence, there is no other way the RTC could have taken cognizance of the case and review the court a quo's Judgment except in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Only statutes can confer jurisdiction. Court issuances cannot seize or appropriate jurisdiction.
FACTS:
Sometime in the year 1987, Elizabeth Monzon, the owner of the adjacent parcel of land being occupied by Darmag Maslag, informed Maslag that the respective parcels of land being claimed by them now be titled. A suggestion was, thereafter made, that those who were interested to have their lands titled, will contribute to a common fund for the surveying and subsequent titling of the land.
Since Maslag had, for so long, yearned for a title to the land she occupies, she contributed to the amount being requested by Elizabeth Monzon.
A subdivision survey was made and in the survey, the respective areas of both were defined and delimited - all for purposes of titling.
But alas, despite the assurance of subdivided titles, when the title was finally issued by the Registry of Deeds, the same was only in the name of Elizabeth Monzon and William Geston. The name of Darma Maslag was fraudulently, deliberately and in bad faith omitted. Thus, the title to the property to the extent of 18, 295 square meters, was titled solely in the name of Elizabeth Monzon.
Darmag Maslag filed an action for nullity of OCT against Elizabeth Monzon in the MTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. To which the court found Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT.
Monzon appealed to the RTC and upon going to the record, the court decided that the MTC has no jurisdiction, it held further that it will take cognizance to the case pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, and asked both parties to submit additional evidence to be tried therein. Both parties, however, did not submit additional evidence.
After trial, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and ordered Maslag to turn over the possession of the 4,415 square meter land with an amount of Php 12, 400 she presently occupies to Monzon. To which Maslag appealed to the Court of Appeals the decision of the RTC reversing the MTC pronouncement. The CA dismissed Maslag's appeal as it found that the proper remedy is a Petition for Review under Rule 42, and not a ordinary appeal. Maslag filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was subsequently denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
HELD:
Yes. There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of the fact of law. The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions.
As discussed above, the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; hence, there is no other way the RTC could have taken cognizance of the case and review the court a quo's Judgment except in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Only statutes can confer jurisdiction. Court issuances cannot seize or appropriate jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s argument lacks merit. To reiterate, only statutes can confer jurisdiction. Court issuances cannot seize or appropriate jurisdiction. It has been repeatedly held that “any judgment, order or resolution issued without [jurisdiction] is void and cannot be given any effect.”39 By parity of reasoning, an order issued by a court declaring that it has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case when under the law it has none cannot likewise be given effect. It amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced. Since BP 129 already apportioned the jurisdiction of the MTC and the RTC in cases involving title to property, neither the courts nor the petitioner could alter or disregard the same. Besides, in determining the proper mode of appeal from an RTC Decision or Resolution, the determinative factor is the type of jurisdiction actually exercised by the RTC in rendering its Decision or Resolution.
Was it rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, or in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction? In short, we look at what type of jurisdiction was actually exercised by the RTC. We do not look into what type of jurisdiction the RTC should have exercised. This is but logical. Inquiring into what the RTC should have done in disposing of the case is a question which already involves the merits of the appeal, but we obviously cannot go into that where the mode of appeal was improper to begin with.
