Nilo h Raymundo vs Court of Appeals and Galleria de Magallanes

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/27/2019 Nilo h Raymundo vs Court of Appeals and Galleria de Magallanes

    1/2

    NILO H. RAYMUNDO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

    SIXTEENTH DIVISION, HON. JUDGE, RTC, BR. 133, MAKATI, METRO

    MANILA AND GALERIA DE MAGALLANES ASSOCIATION, INC.,

    RESPONDENTS.

    FACTS: It appears on record that the administrator of the Galleria de

    Magallanes Condominium discovered that petitioner Nilo Raymundo, whowas an owner/occupant of Unit AB-122 of said condominium, made an

    unauthorized installation of glasses at the balcony of his unit in violation ofArticle IV, Section 3 paragraph (d) of the Master Deed and Declaration of

    Restrictions of the Association.

    Thereafter, the administrator of said condominium reported said violation to

    the Board of Directors of the private respondent Galleria de MagallanesAssociation, Inc. in a special meeting and the former sent a letter to thepetitioner demanding the latter to remove the illegal and unauthorizedinstallation of glasses at his unit.

    Petitioner refused, consequently, private respondent filed a complaint for

    mandatory injunction against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court ofMakati.

    Instead of an Answer, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss with the trial court

    on the ground that said court has no jurisdiction over the present case sincea complaint for mandatory injunction is within the exclusive original

    jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

    The Motion to Dismiss was denied.

    This is now a petition alleging want of jurisdiction of the trial court to hear

    and decide private respondent's complaint for mandatory injunctionconsidering that private respondent's sole pecuniary claim of P10,000.00 asattorney's fees in Civil Case No. 90-490 is within the original and exclusivejurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for under Section 33

    of B.P. 129.

    Issue:Whether or not the case falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC

    HELD:AFFIRMATIVE

    The contention of the petitioner is devoid of merit because private

    respondents complaint is an action to compel the petitioner to remove theillegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of the

  • 7/27/2019 Nilo h Raymundo vs Court of Appeals and Galleria de Magallanes

    2/2

    condominium which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and falls under

    the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Section 33 of BatasPambansa Bilang 129 is not applicable in the instant case, but paragraph

    (1), Section 19 and paragraph (1), Section 21 of said law