Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
431
1/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
FIRST DIVISION.
432
432
2/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
433
fee in the proper amount should be adhered to, there are certain
exceptions which must be strictly construed. In recent rulings,
this Court has relaxed the strict adherence to the Manchester
doctrine, allowing the plaintiff to pay the proper docket fees
within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
Same Venue Partnerships An action for accounting,
payment of partnership shares, division of assets and damages is a
personal action which, under the Rules, may be commenced and
tried where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the
plaintiffs reside, at the election of the latter.On the matter of
improper venue, we find no error on the part of the trial court and
the Court of Appeals in holding that the case below is a personal
action which, under the Rules, may be commenced and tried
where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the
plaintiffs reside, at the election of the latter.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f1c1d2f8a6fcab7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
434
4/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
she can file an action based on the rights of her deceased husband
she and her children are complainants in their own right as
successors, the deceaseds rights being transmitted to his heirs
from the moment of death.On the third issue, petitioner asserts
that the surviving spouse of Vicente Tabanao has no legal
capacity to sue since she was never appointed as administratrix
or executrix of his estate. Petitioners objection in this regard is
misplaced. The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as
executrix or administratrix of the estate before she can file the
action. She and her children are complainants in their own right
as successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the very moment of
Vicente Tabanaos death, his rights insofar as the partnership
was concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the
succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the
decedent. Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had
against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to
respondents by operation of law, more particularly by succession,
which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property,
rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance
of a person are transmitted. Moreover, respondents became
owners of their respective hereditary shares from the moment
Vicente Tabanao died.
Same Same Same The heirs, as successors who stepped into
the shoes of their decedent upon his death, can commence any
action originally pertaining to the decedent.A prior settlement of
the estate, or even the appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as
executrix or administratrix, is not necessary for any of the heirs to
acquire legal capacity to sue. As successors who stepped into the
shoes of their decedent upon his death, they can commence any
action originally pertaining to the decedent. From the moment of
his death, his rights as a partner and to demand fulfillment of
petitioners obligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement
were transmitted to respondents. They, therefore, had the
capacity to sue and seek the courts intervention to compel
petitioner to fulfill his obligations.
435
435
5/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
436
6/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
Civil Case No. 416C before the RTC of Cadiz City, Branch 60.
Rollo, p. 41.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f1c1d2f8a6fcab7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
437
437
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f1c1d2f8a6fcab7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
10
438
Petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
11
Appeals, raising the following issues:
I. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
taking cognizance of a case despite the failure to
pay the required docket fee
II. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
insisting to try the case which involve (sic) a parcel
of land situated outside of its territorial
jurisdiction
III. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
allowing the estate of the deceased to appear as
party plaintiff, when there is no intestate case and
filed by one who was never appointed by the court
as administratrix of the estates and
IV. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not
dismissing the case on the ground of prescription.
On August 8, 1996,
the Court of Appeals rendered the
12
assailed decision, dismissing the petition for certiorari,
upon a finding that no grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by the trial
court in issuing the questioned orders denying petitioners
motions to dismiss.
Not satisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for
review, raising the same issues resolved by the Court of
Appeals, namely:
I. Failure to pay the proper docket fee
II. Parcel of land subject of the case pending before the
trial court is outside the said court's territorial
jurisdiction
III. Lack of capacity to sue on the part of plaintiff heirs
of Vicente Tabanao and
IV. Prescription of the plaintiff heirs cause of action.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f1c1d2f8a6fcab7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
12
439
10/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
14
15
16
440
11/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
18
681 (1989).
441
441
In Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Court of
19
Appeals, this Court pronounced that the abovequoted
provision clearly contemplates an initial payment of the
filing fees corresponding to the estimated amount of the
claim subject
to adjustment as to what later may be
20
proved. Moreover, we reiterated therein the principle
that the payment of filing fees cannot be made contingent
or dependent on the result of the case. Thus, an initial
payment of the docket fees based on an estimated amount
must be paid simultaneous with the filing of the complaint.
Otherwise, the court would stand to lose the filing fees
should the judgment later turn out to be adverse to any
claim of the respondent heirs.
The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere
triviality. These fees are necessary to defray court expenses
in the handling of cases. Consequently, in order to avoid
tremendous losses to the judiciary, and to the government
as well, the payment of docket fees cannot be made
dependent on the outcome of the case, except when the
claimant is a pauperlitigant.
Applied to the instant case, respondents have a specific
claim1/3 of the value of all the partnership assetsbut
they did not allege a specific amount. They did, however,
estimate the partnerships total assets to be
worth Thirty
21
Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00), in a letter addressed to
petitioner. Respondents cannot now say that they are
unable to make an estimate, for the said letter and the
admissions therein form part of the records of this case.
They cannot avoid paying the initial docket fees by
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f1c1d2f8a6fcab7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
12/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
Supra.
20
Ibid., p. 680.
21
Record, p. 32.
442
442
13/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
23
24
Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 477, 491 (1993)
TalisaySilay Milling Co. v. Asociacion de Agricultores de TalisaySilay, Inc., 247
SCRA 361, 384385 (1995).
25
443
443
14/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
444
15/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
28
17 SCRA 1, 4 (1966).
29
30
31
445
16/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
into the shoes of their decedent upon his death, they can
commence35 any action originally pertaining to the
decedent. From the moment of his death, his rights as a
partner and to demand fulfillment of petitioners
obligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement were
transmitted to respondents. They, therefore, had the
capacity to sue and seek the courts intervention to compel
petitioner to fulfill his obligations.
Finally, petitioner contends that the trial court should
have dismissed the complaint on the ground of
prescription, arguing that respondents action prescribed
four (4) years after it accrued in 1986. The trial court and
the Court of Appeals gave scant consideration to
petitioners hollow arguments, and rightly so.
_______________
32
34
35
Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 345, 354 (1998).
446
446
17/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
37
447
18/19
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME370
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
Pardo, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, case remanded to trial court.
Notes.The Supreme Court has uniformly frowned
upon appellate courts entertaining petitions to litigate as
pauper, holding that the question of whether a party
litigant is so poor as to qualify him to litigate as a pauper is
a question of fact which is best determined by the trial
court. (Martinez vs. People, 332 SCRA 694 [2000])
A court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon
payment of the prescribed docket fee. (Soller vs.
Commission on Elections, 339 SCRA 685 [2000])
o0o
448
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f1c1d2f8a6fcab7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/19