Title
Bernas vs. Sovereign Ventures, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 142424
Decision Date
Jul 21, 2006
Jose Bernas contested RTC's jurisdiction over a property dispute with Sovereign Ventures, alleging lack of notice of raffle. SC upheld CA, ruling no grave abuse of discretion and voluntary submission to jurisdiction.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 142424)

Facts:

Ownership of the Property

  • Jose A. Bernas (petitioner) is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 336663.
  • Sovereign Ventures, Inc. (respondent) claims ownership of the same property, supported by TCT Nos. N-138316, N-138317, N-138318, N-14190, N-145202, N-1452208, and N-1452209.

Filing of the Petition

  • Respondent filed a Petition for Quieting of Title with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78, Quezon City, seeking to prevent the annotation of notices of lis pendens on its titles, which would hinder its plan to sell the property.
  • On February 26, 1996, the RTC issued an Order directing the parties to maintain the status quo and temporarily restraining them from annotating lis pendens on the property.

Petitioner's Omnibus Motion

  • On March 5, 1996, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion challenging the RTC's Order, arguing that he was not notified of the raffle of the case, violating Supreme Court Circular No. 20-95 (now Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
  • During the hearing on March 7, 1996, petitioner orally moved for a re-raffle and re-hearing, but the trial court denied his motion, stating that the absence of a notice of raffle was "cured" by the hearing.

Writ of Preliminary Injunction

  • On March 27, 1996, the RTC granted respondent's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the Register of Deeds from annotating notices of lis pendens on the property.

Petitioner's Certiorari Petitions

  • On June 13, 1996, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 125058), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The petition was dismissed for failure to attach an affidavit of service.
  • On August 2, 1996, petitioner filed a second Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 125632), which was dismissed for being late and because the earlier petition had already been dismissed.

Motion to Dismiss

  • On April 8, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction due to lack of notice of raffle. The motion was denied on January 20, 1998, and petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied on July 27, 1998.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

  • Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on September 14, 1999, holding that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion and that petitioner had voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
  • Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 7, 2000.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Notice of Raffle: The Court found that the RTC complied with the requirements of Supreme Court Circular No. 20-95 (now Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). The notice of raffle was sent to petitioner's previous business address and was received by a receptionist. The RTC could not be faulted for sending the notice to the address provided in respondent's petition.

  2. Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction: Petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC by filing motions and participating in hearings. A court acquires jurisdiction over a person either through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance.

  3. Improper Remedy: The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge the denial of a motion to dismiss. The proper remedy is to appeal after a final decision has been rendered.

  4. Finality of Previous Resolutions: The Court noted that petitioner had filed multiple petitions raising the same issue, and warned against further similar petitions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that petitioner was properly notified of the raffle. Petitioner's voluntary participation in the proceedings also confirmed the RTC's jurisdiction over him.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.