8/10/2019 Addtl Cases in Jurisdiction (Digest)

1/2

MABANO, Michelle Mae L. CivPro Sat 3:30-9:00pm

C A S E D I G E S T S

ARUEGO, JR. vs COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996

FACTS:On March 7, 1983, a Complaint for Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement of

Successional Rights was filed before Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila by the

minors, private respondent Antonia F. Aruego and her alleged sister Evelyn F. Aruego,

represented by their mother and natural guardian, Luz M. Fabian praying that theyd be

declared the illegitimate children of the deceased Jose M. Aruego, Sr. and that theyd be

recognized by latters legal family and be given their proportionate share of his estate.

It was alleged that the late Jose M. Aruego, Sr., a married man, had an amorous relationship

with Luz M. Fabian sometime in 1959 until his death on March 30, 1982. Out of this relationship

were born Antonia F. Aruego and Evelyn F. Aruego on October 5, 1962 and September 3, 1963,

respectively.

RTC gave a favorable decision declaring Anbtonia as an illegitimate child of Jose Aruego, Sr.

and she and her mother were given their proportionate share of the deceaseds estate.

Herein petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the decision alleging loss of

jurisdiction on the part of the trial court over the complaint by virtue of the passage of Executive

Order No. 209 (as amended by Executive Order No. 227), otherwise known as the Family Code

of the Philippines which took effect on August 3, 1988. This motion was denied by the lower

court.

Petitioners interposed an appeal but was dismissed by the RTC for it was filed out of time.

A Petition for Prohibition and Certiorariwith prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was filed

by herein petitioners before respondent Court of Appeals, but the same was dismissed.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE:Whether or not the trial court loss jurisdiction over the case with the passing of the

Family Code?

RULING:Our ruling herein reinforces the principle that the jurisdiction of a court, whether in

criminal or civil cases, once attached cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events

(the enactment of the Family Code, in this case), although of a character which would have

prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and it retains jurisdiction until it finally

disposes of the case.

8/10/2019 Addtl Cases in Jurisdiction (Digest)

2/2

BARRAMEDA vs RURAL BANK OF CANAMAN INC.G.R. No. 176260, November 24, 2010

FACTS: petitioner Lucia Barrameda Vda. De Ballesteros (Lucia)filed a complaint forAnnulment

of Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, Deed of Mortgage and Damages with prayer for Preliminary

Injunctionagainst her children, Roy, Rito, Amy, Arabel, Rico, Abe, Ponce Rex and Adden, all

surnamed Ballesteros, and the Rural Bank of Canaman, Inc., Baao Branch (RBCI) before the

RTC-Iriga praying that the deed of extrajudicial partition and waiver made by her children, and

the subsequent mortgage in favor of RBCI be declared null and void having been executed

without her knowledge and consent.

RBCI, through PDIC, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC-Iriga has no

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. RBCI stated that pursuant to Section 30,

Republic Act No. 7653(RA No. 7653),otherwise known as the "New Central Bank Act," the

RTC-Makati, already constituted itself, per its Order dated August 10, 2001, as the liquidation

court to assist PDIC in undertaking the liquidation of RBCI. Thus, the subject matter of Civil

Case No. IR-3128 fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of such liquidation court.

RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss. CA ordered the consolidation of the civil case and the

liquidation case with the liquidation court, RTC-Makati.

ISSUE: Whether a liquidation court can take cognizance of a case wherein the main cause of

action is not a simple money claim against a bank ordered closed, placed under receivership of

the PDIC, and undergoing a liquidation proceeding.

RULING: Generally, when a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a

controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to final determination of the case is not affected by a new

legislation transferring jurisdiction over such proceedings to another tribunal. Once jurisdiction is

vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.

However, this rule does not find application in this case.

The rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and has exceptions. One of the exceptions

is that when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character.

Section 30, R.A. 7653 is curative in character when it declared that the liquidation court shall

have jurisdiction in the same proceedings to assist in the adjudication of the disputed claims

against the Bank. The interpretation of this Section (formerly Section 29, R.A. 265) becomes

more obvious in the light of its intent.

To allow Lucias case to proceed independently of the liquidation case, a possibility of favorable

judgment and execution thereof against the assets of RBCI would not only prejudice the other

creditors and depositors but would defeat the very purpose for which a liquidation court was

constituted as well.