Marquez Lim Cay v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Koo Ang Cho and Ang Chay filed a complaint against petitioner Pedro Marquez Lim Cay for accounting of conjugal property and partition. The complaint was amended multiple times, including adding other petitioners as defendants and P. Marquez Lim, Inc. as a party defendant. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a demurrer to the complaint for failure to state a cause of action due to lack of property description. The court sustained the demurrer, ordering plaintiffs to amend. Plaintiffs amended, describing the property and including more defendants. Petitioners, through special appearance, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent judge granted this, dismissing the case. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, seeking to amend their complaint. Petitioners opposed. The respondent judge then issued an order denying the cancellation of the bond and lis pendens, setting aside the dismissal order, and granting plaintiffs 30 days to amend. Petitioners moved to reinstate the dismissal order. Plaintiffs opposed. Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint eliminating the partition. The respondent judge denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the respondent judge's order vacating the dismissal and allowing amendment, arguing it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint in civil case No. 37757. Whether the respondent judge erred in vacating his order of dismissal and permitting the amendment of the complaint.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The respondent judge acquired jurisdiction to try the complaint. The respondent judge did not err in vacating his order of dismissal and permitting the amendment of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that the respondent judge acquired jurisdiction over the case. The action was a mixed action, comprising a personal action for accounting and a real action for partition. While the venue for the real aspect was contested, the Court applied the doctrine that venue provisions are procedural and can be waived. The petitioners' actions, such as filing a demurrer on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction, praying for the dissolution of attachment and furnishing a bond without a special appearance objecting to jurisdiction, and later praying for the assessment of damages, constituted an implied waiver of their privilege to object to the venue. These acts submitted them to the jurisdiction of the respondent judge. Even though they later entered a special appearance, it was after they had already submitted to the court's jurisdiction. On the issue of vacating the dismissal order: The Court affirmed that the respondent judge had jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, he did not err in vacating his previous order of dismissal, which was based on a mistaken belief of lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, even if the dismissal was proper with respect to the real aspect (partition), the court retained jurisdiction over the personal aspect (accounting) and could proceed to hear that part of the case. The respondent judge's authority to set aside his own order of dismissal and allow amendments was thus upheld.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a demurrer on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction, praying for dissolution of attachment and giving bond, and praying for damages, constitutes an implied waiver of the privilege to object to the venue, thereby submitting to the court's jurisdiction. A mixed action, when dismissed with respect to the real aspect, does not divest the court of jurisdiction over the personal aspect.