Jurisdiction Navales et al., v. Abaya et al.

change the jurisdiction of the courts is a matter of legislative enactment. Cuenca v. PCGG

Facts: Navales et al., were committed to the General Court-Martial for their violations of Articles of War after their failed Oakwood Mutiny. Navales then appealed before the SC to issue a TRO and prayed that the Court be enjoined from constituting the Court-Martial. They argue that the said court had no jurisdiction over the case since the RTC Makati had already ruled that the Oakwood Mutiny was not serviceconnected but was absorbed and in furtherance of the crime of coup detat. Issue: WON Navales et al., are entitled to the writ of prohibition. Held: No. The RTC erred in declaring the violations made by Navales et al., in connection to the Articles of War as not service-connected. RA No. 7055 which governs the case at bar is clear in expressing the violations which fall within the purview of service-connected. Thus, the same law does not divest the General Court-Martial the jusrisdiction to try the subject matter. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a case. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred only by the constitution or by law. It cannot be: 1. Granted by the agreement of the parties 2. Acquired, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties or 3. Conferred by the acquiescence of the court. The power to Facts: In 1978, Cuenca and CIC (family-owned holding company) purchased all the shares of stocks and subscription of IRC in UHC. Then CIC transferred all its shares of stocks from 4 other corporations, making the UHC th flagship company of CIC. Then, Cuenca was elected as Chairperson and President of UHC. However, when People Power 1 broke out, the IRC was not able to transfer the stocks and subscription rights to CIC. Because of the confession of one of the alleged cronies of Marcos, Jose Yao Campos, the PCGG sequestered the UHC. CIC then filed a complaint in RTC Makati compeling the IRC to return and reconvey to them all the assets and shares of stock of 4 other corporation which they transferred to UHC. IRC and UHC moved to dismiss said case arguing that RTC has no jurisdiction rather the Sandiganbayan. PCGG also moved to dismiss the case by litis pendentia since theres a pending case before the Sandiganbayan involving same parties. The RTC then ruled in favor of CIC, ordering the reconveyance of the stocks in favor of CIC. PCGG then appealed the case before the CA. The CA revered the decision of RTC and dismissed the case. CA ratiocinated that Sandiganbayan has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case. Cuenca then appealed it in SC contending that the CA erred in holding that Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the case but to RTC.

Issue: WON RTC has the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Held: The Sandiganbayan has the exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The fact is setted that the IRC and UHC is one of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. The law provides for the Sandiganbayan to take jurisdiction over cases involving such activity. Hence, this has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. Jurisdition over the subject matter is conferred by the constitution or by law while jurisdiction over the person is acquired by his voluntary submission to the authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes. Jurisdiction over the res is obtained by actual or constructive seizure placing the property under the orders of the court. Henry Cang v. CA Facts: Henry Cang and Anna Cang were legally separated. After such sepration, Henry went to US giving the custody of their 3 childred to Anna. In 1987, the brother of Anna filed special proceeding for the adoption of their 3 children, with the Annas consent. They cited that Henry had already abandoned their children hence his consent is no longer a necessary. After learning about this, Henry went to the Philippines to oppose such proceeding. He presented before the RTC Cebu proofs that he actually did not abandon his children. He showed some bank transactions and other proofs. However, the RTC found

this proof unfounded and incredible, and they decide in favor of the adoption. He appealed this before the CA, but to no avail. The CA contend that being proven that he abandoned his children, his consent is no longer necessary as per Article 188 of the Family Code. Henry appealed this decision before the SC. Issue: WON Family Code shall have the effect over the case. Held: No. The RTC and CA erred in holding that the Family Code shall govern over the case. Jurisdiction as a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. As such when private respondents filed the petition for adoption on 1987, the law in force is the Child and Youth Welfare Code as amended by EO 91. This provides that the consent of both the natural parents are essential in the adoption case in order for it to be valid. Original Jurisdiction Cubero vs Laguna West Facts: Cubero along with some other folks enter into a JVA with Belle Corp to develop several hectares of CARP land owned by Cubero and folks in Tanuan Batangas. Upon learning of this deal, Laguna West files 9 ex parte motions to have adverse claims attached on the subject lots, claiming that LW had a prior JVA with the predecessors in interest of Cubero and folks and that these same JVA's were registered as adverse claims over the

previous titles of the subjects lots. Belle for its part alleges that the JVA between LW and the predecessors in interest are void ab initio since they were executed within the 10 year prohibitory period under RA 6657 (CAR law of '88). RTC dismisses the case, holding that the matter must be brought before the DARAB first since it involves a question over which DARAB has primary jurisdiction. The MR is rejected hence the present petition for review on certiorari. Issue: Does DARAB have original jurisdiction over this matter Held: Yes. In the recent case of Islanders CARP-Farmers Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative Development, Inc. v. Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp., 23 this Court elucidated on the scope of an agrarian dispute, viz: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, with exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Law The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction t odetermine and adjudicate a ll agrarian disputes involvi ng the implementation of th

e Comprehensive Agrarian Reform (CARL). Included in the definition of agrarian disputesare those arising from other tenurial arrangements beyond the traditional landowner-tenantor lessorlessee relationship. Expressly, these arrangements are recognized by Republic ActN o . 6 6 5 7 a s e s s e n t i a l p a r t s of agrarian reform. Thus, the D A R A B h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r disp utes arising from the instant Joint Production Agreement entered into by the presentparties.I n c a s e s where allegations of violation or circumvention of land r e f o r m l a w s h a v e b e e n raised, this Court has declined to address them, it stating that petitioners must first pleadtheir case with the DARAB. There is no reason why this Court should now hold otherwise.Bonus Reading: (Distinction between original and exclusive jurisdiction: Original jurisdictionmeans jurisdiction to take cognizance of a cause at its inception, try it and pass judgmentupon the law and facts, while exclusive jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence andrefers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others.) Concurrent Jurisdiction Lim v. Vianzon Facts: Lim et al., filed before the Provincial Prosecutor of Balanga, Bataan complaint against Garcia for its allegedly willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in an affidavit it submitted to the Register of Deeds. Garcia in turn, filed in the Prosecutors office counter affidavit against Lim et

al., Falsification of Public Document. The prosecutor then consolidated such complaints into one joint resolution. It ruled in favor Lim et al., and against Garcia. Two months after such ruling, Garcia filed before the RTC praying of the annulment of the deeds of sale in possession of Lim. Lim moved for the dismissal of such case which the RTC denied. He files an MR but to no avail. Hence they filed a ceritiotari before the SC. Issue: WON such petition for certitiorari be within the jurisdiction of the Court Held: NO. On the procedural aspect, the Court found the petitioners disregarded the doctrine of judicial hierarchy which enjoin litigants and lawyers to strictly observe. The courtss original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is shared with the RTC and CA. the invocation of the SC original jurisdiction should be only allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out the petition.