Aban v. Enage
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and title of Lot No. 427 in Butuan City. Initially, this lot was decreed as the property of the late Eleuterio Cuenca. Subsequently, it was subdivided, and a portion, Lot No. 427-C-1, was issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-1693 in the name of petitioner Andres Aban. The heirs of Eleuterio Cuenca claim that this title was issued without proper legal basis and that the land rightfully belongs to them. Procedural History: The case originated from Civil Case No. 1005 filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Agusan, seeking the nullification of various documents and plans related to Lot No. 427. Andres Aban was initially a defendant but was dropped as a party. Later, the heirs of Eleuterio Cuenca filed a motion in Civil Case No. 1005 to cancel TCT No. RT-1693, alleging Aban's claim was abandoned. The CFI, through respondent Judge Manuel L. Enage, issued an order on July 29, 1968, canceling TCT No. RT-1693 and ordering the issuance of a new title to the Cuenca heirs. Petitioners filed multiple motions for reconsideration, all denied. This led to the filing of the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Petition: Petitioners Andres Aban and Dolores Galope filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to nullify the July 29, 1968 order of the CFI. They argue that the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction because the motion to cancel the title was improperly filed as a separate action, they were not parties to Civil Case No. 1005, and the court lacked authority to cancel their title without proper proceedings. They contend that the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and that there was no adequate remedy by appeal. The petition also details a complex procedural history involving numerous appearances and filings by various counsels for both parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance (CFI) acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of TCT No. RT-1693. Whether petitioners submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the CFI despite not being parties to the amended complaint in Civil Case No. 1005. Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The order of the trial court dated July 29, 1968, is affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on July 9, 1969, is lifted and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the lower court. Despite their claim that the motion to cancel was a separate action and that they were not parties to Civil Case No. 1005, the records showed that summons was served upon them, they filed an opposition to the motion, and their counsel appeared during the hearing. Furthermore, they filed three motions for reconsideration, which constituted a further submission to the court's jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the claim of lack of jurisdiction based on not being a party to the original amended complaint was a mere technicality, especially since Andres Aban's initial dismissal as a defendant was of his own making. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion as the petitioners had ample opportunity to present their case. On the procedural aspect of submitting to jurisdiction: The Court reiterated the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, while jurisdiction over the persons can be acquired by voluntary appearance. In this case, the service of summons, the filing of an opposition, the appearance of counsel at the hearing, the submission of memoranda, and the filing of multiple motions for reconsideration all demonstrated a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the CFI. Therefore, petitioners were bound by the legal effects of the court's order. On the propriety of the remedy: The Court found that the petitioners had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which was to appeal the order of cancellation. However, by filing a petition for certiorari and prohibition, they bypassed the appellate process. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to rule on the merits of the jurisdictional issue, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court also noted that the issue of substitution of attorneys, while extensively discussed in the proceedings, did not affect the core jurisdictional question concerning the cancellation of the title.
Main Doctrine
A party who voluntarily appears in court, files an opposition, and submits a memorandum, thereby submits to the court's jurisdiction, even if the initial motion against them was considered a separate action. The filing of multiple motions for reconsideration further solidifies this submission to jurisdiction.