Two separate actions for registration were lodged over the same parcel of land. The first action was instituted in the then Court of First Instance of Cavite in 1956 by Pedro Lopez, et al. The second action, meanwhile, was filed before the then Court of First Instance of Cavite in Tagaytay City sometime in 1967 by Honest de Castro, et al. The first case encountered a lot of opposition first from the Municipality of Silang, Cavite, since it alleges that a portion of the land sought to be registered had been leased to private persons, and was in fact the former’s patrimonial property, to which the applicants answered that the whole of the land passed to them by inheritance. The municipality sought for a dismissal of the application for registration, which the court denied. The court reasoned that even if the land was the property of the Municipality of Silang, by virtue of its incorporation into the city of Tagaytay, it became property of the latter. Thus, according to the court, the municipality of Silang has no personality to appear in the proceedings. In 1971, after due investigation regarding the application, the court accordingly rendered a decision approving the application and ordering the issuance of a corresponding decree of registration to Lopez, et al. In the second case, meanwhile, although the application for registration was filed only in 1967, or 11 years after the filing of the first action, the court of Tagaytay City promulgated a decision in 1968 adjudicating the land in favor of de Castro, et al. De Castro, et al. claim that pursuant to Republic Act 3749, the Tagaytay court held jurisdiction now over the case, and as such, was the proper venue for any action involving registration of lands covered by its jurisdiction.
FACTS:
ISSUE
Whether or not the trial court was divested of its jurisdiction. :
HELD
It has been submitted that a court having territorial jurisdiction over the property should take cognizance of its registration, upon the creation of the Tagaytay City branch, Pedro Lopez, et al.’s application for registration should have been transferred to that court inasmuch as the property involved is located in that city. It appears, however, that the Cavite City branch remained the venue of petitioners' application for registration, according to RA 3749. Notably, the law is not clear on whether or not the phrase "in the same place" refers to the judicial district/province or the place where a branch of the court is stationed. Hence, considering the general rule that once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case it remains with that court until its full termination, the phrase "in the same place" should be interpreted as referring to the province of Cavite. The Cavite City branch of the CFI of Cavite thus correctly retained jurisdiction over the application for registration because there was no jurisdictional question involved in the proceedings in Land Registration Case No. 299. What was in question was whether the Cavite City branch of the Cavite CFI was the proper venue for said case upon the creation of the Tagaytay City branch. Venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial.
50 | P a g e
CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 4
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
GLASGOW CREDIT AND COLLECTION SERVICES, INC. and CITYSTATE SAVINGS BANK, INC.
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Manila for civil forfeiture of assets with urgent plea for issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the bank deposits maintained by Glasgow Credit and Collection Servicesin Citystate Savings Bank, Inc.. Acting on the plea for the issuance of a TRO, the RTC Manila issued a 72-hour TRO, and the case was raffled for hearing. The summons intended for Glasgow remained unserved, as it could no longer be found at its last address, and left no forwarding address. Subsequently, the OSG received a copy of Glasgow’s Motion to Dismiss by Way of Special Appearance, alleging that the court had no jurisdiction over its person as summons had not been duly served upon it, among others. The Republic opposed such motion, contending that the action is quasi in rem where jurisdiction over the person of the defendant was not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction upon the court. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground of improper venue as it should have been filed in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the complaint was correctly dismissed due to improper venue.
HELD:
The Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture. The order dismissing the Republic’s complaint for civil forfeiture of Glasgow’s account in CSBI has not yet attained finality on account of the pendency of this appeal. Thus, the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture applies to the Republic’s complaint. Moreover, Glasgow itself judicially admitted that the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture is "applicable to the instant case." Section 3, Title II (Civil Forfeiture in the Regional Trial Court) of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture provides that a petition for civil forfeiture shall be filed in any regional trial court of the judicial region where the monetary instrument, property or proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are located; provided, however, that where all or any portion of the monetary instrument, property or proceeds is located outside the Philippines, the petition may be filed in the regional trial court in Manila or of the judicial region where any portion of the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds is located, at the option of the petitioner. Under Section 3, Title II of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, therefore, the venue of civil forfeiture cases is any RTC of the judicial region where the monetary instrument, property or proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are located. Pasig City, where the account sought to be forfeited in this case is situated, is within the National Capital Judicial Region (NCJR). Clearly, the complaint for civil forfeiture of the account may be filed in any RTC of the NCJR. Since the RTC Manila is one of the RTCs of the NCJR, it was a proper venue of the Republic’s complaint for civil forfeiture of Glasgow’s account.
51 | P a g e