Case Digest (G.R. No. 28674-75)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 28674-75)
Facts:
Ulla Bahanuddin v. Lt. Col. Mario Hidalgo, G.R. No. 28674-75. February 29, 1972, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The appeal was from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Civil Cases Nos. 7077 and 7078.The plaintiff-appellee, Ulla Bahanuddin, sued as attorney-in-fact for Hadji Amelia in the City Court of Iloilo to recover the motorized vessel M/I Crusader (and later M/I Aida). The complaint alleged the vessel was stolen on March 29, 1966, and later was found in the possession of the Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary, Lt. Col. Mario Hidalgo (defendant-appellant). The Provincial Commander answered, alleging lack of cause of action and asserting the vessel had been turned over to him for safekeeping by the Philippine Navy after interception for carrying undeclared cigarettes.
After the complaint was amended on May 7, 1966 to include the Collector of Customs and the Port Surveyor of Iloilo, the City Court on May 9, 1966 ordered the vessel released to plaintiff upon posting a bond of P20,000; the bond was posted and the vessel delivered to plaintiff. The Customs respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the vessel had been intercepted by the Philippine Navy (RPS Camarines Sur) on April 4, 1966, that seizure and forfeiture proceedings were instituted by the Bureau of Customs in April 1966, and that custody had been assumed by the Collector of Customs.
On June 7, 1966 the City Court granted the motion and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, but the dismissal order failed to annul the earlier writ of replevin or direct return of the vessels. The Provincial Fiscal sought reconsideration asking specifically that the court order the return of the vessels; the City Court denied the motion, reasoning that having disclaimed jurisdiction it no longer had authority to amend its order. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance, which sustained the dismissal, and the defendants then prosecuted the present appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge whether the City Court could direct return of the seized vessels after declaring itself devoid of jurisdiction.
Issues:
- When a court declares itself without jurisdiction and dismisses a case, may it, before that dismissal becomes final, amend its order to annul a previously issued writ of replevin and order the return of property?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)