Case Digest (G.R. No. 205966)
Facts:
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Petitioner, filed on April 10, 2008 a Complaint for annulment of title, revocation of certificate and damages with application for preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City, Bulacan, and obtained an order enjoining the construction and operation of a dumpsite on the subject land; Feliciano P. Legaspi, Respondent, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and unauthorized representation. The RTC denied the motion and its reconsideration (Orders dated January 20, 2009 and April 3, 2009); the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and dismissed BSP’s complaint in a Decision dated August 15, 2012 (Resolution denying reconsideration dated February 18, 2013), prompting BSP’s Rule 45 petition filed March 13, 2013 to the Supreme Court.Issues:
- Did the RTC have exclusive original jurisdiction over the action because the assessed value of the property exceeded P20,000?
- Was the engagement and appearance of private co
Case Digest (G.R. No. 205966)
Facts:
- Parties and initiating pleadings
- Petitioner Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) filed a Complaint for annulment of title, revocation of certificate and damages with application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City, Bulacan.
- Defendants named in the complaint included Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., Luningning G. De Leon, Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr., Ex-Mayor Matilde A. Legaspi and respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi, who was the incumbent Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan at the time of filing.
- RTC preliminary injunction and underlying property
- On May 13, 2008, the RTC issued an Order mandating the issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr., respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi, and persons acting for and in their behalf from pursuing the construction, development and/or operation of a dumpsite or landfill in Barangay San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan.
- The subject property was alleged to be covered by OCT No. P858/Free Patent No. 257917 and described as having an area of 4,838,736 square meters (483.87 hectares).
- Motion to dismiss and grounds asserted by respondent Legaspi
- Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss dated August 15, 2008 contending lack of personal jurisdiction because the suit was unauthorized by BSP and the counsel representing BSP was not authorized and thus could not bind it.
- Respondent further argued lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint was prima facie void, the suit was initiated without authority of the Monetary Board, and the complaint was not prepared and signed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the statutory counsel of government agencies.
- BSP's opposition and claimed authorizations
- BSP opposed the Motion to Dismiss and asserted that the complaint was filed pursuant to Monetary Board Resolution No. 8865 dated June 17, 2004.
- BSP averred that the complaint was verified by Geraldine C. Alag, Director of Asset Management Department (AMD) of BSP, who stated she was authorized by Monetary Board Resolutions No. 805 dated June 17, 2008 and No. 1005 dated July 29, 2005.
- BSP also contended that it was not precluded from being represented by private counsel of its choice.
- RTC denial of motion to dismiss and supporting findings
- The RTC rendered an Order denying respondent Legaspi’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that it acquired personal jurisdiction when BSP filed the Complaint dated April 10, 2008.
- The RTC ruled that in suits involving BSP, the Monetary Board may authorize the Governor to represent BSP personally or through counsel, including private counsel, and that the authority to represent BSP may be delegated to other officers.
- The RTC relied on the Complaint verified by Geraldine C. Alag and a Secretary’s Certificate issued by Silvina Q. Mamaril-Roxas, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Secretary of BSP’s Monetary Board, attesting to Monetary Board Resolution No. 900 adopted July 18, 2008 approving the engagement of Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit and Acorda Law Offices (OKMA Law).
- Motion for reconsideration and assessed-value contention
- Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the complaint, a real action, failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property.
- BSP replied that the property’s large area made it unthinkable that its assessed value would b...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Jurisdictional question over subject matter
- Whether the Regional Trial Court had exclusive original jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, given the assessed value of the subject property and the attachments to the complaint.
- Jurisdictional question over the person and legality of representation
- Whether BSP lawfully engaged private counsel and whether the filing and verification of the complaint by BSP officers and the Monetary Board resolutions sufficed to confer personal jurisdiction over BSP.
- Authority of statutory counsel requirement
- Whether the s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)