Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 views

    Atwel V Concepcionprogessive g169370

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of property between Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc. (CPAI) and petitioners Eustacio Atwel, Lucia Pilpil, and Manuel Melgazo. CPAI claimed it owned the property, while petitioners argued it belonged to Manuel Melgazo's deceased father. 2) The Supreme Court ruled the SEC special commercial court did not have jurisdiction over the case, as it involved a civil dispute over property ownership rather than an intra-corporate controversy. 3) The Court rejected the argument that petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is conferred by law rather than the parties, and the SEC court clearly lacked jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Atwel V Concepcionprogessive g169370

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    144 views2 pages
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of property between Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc. (CPAI) and petitioners Eustacio Atwel, Lucia Pilpil, and Manuel Melgazo. CPAI claimed it owned the property, while petitioners argued it belonged to Manuel Melgazo's deceased father. 2) The Supreme Court ruled the SEC special commercial court did not have jurisdiction over the case, as it involved a civil dispute over property ownership rather than an intra-corporate controversy. 3) The Court rejected the argument that petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is conferred by law rather than the parties, and the SEC court clearly lacked jurisdiction

    Original Description:

    Civil Procedure

    Original Title

    Atwel v Concepcionprogessive g169370

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of property between Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc. (CPAI) and petitioners Eustacio Atwel, Lucia Pilpil, and Manuel Melgazo. CPAI claimed it owned the property, while petitioners argued it belonged to Manuel Melgazo's deceased father. 2) The Supreme Court ruled the SEC special commercial court did not have jurisdiction over the case, as it involved a civil dispute over property ownership rather than an intra-corporate controversy. 3) The Court rejected the argument that petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is conferred by law rather than the parties, and the SEC court clearly lacked jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    144 views2 pages

    Atwel V Concepcionprogessive g169370

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of property between Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc. (CPAI) and petitioners Eustacio Atwel, Lucia Pilpil, and Manuel Melgazo. CPAI claimed it owned the property, while petitioners argued it belonged to Manuel Melgazo's deceased father. 2) The Supreme Court ruled the SEC special commercial court did not have jurisdiction over the case, as it involved a civil dispute over property ownership rather than an intra-corporate controversy. 3) The Court rejected the argument that petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is conferred by law rather than the parties, and the SEC court clearly lacked jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    169370 April 14, 2008

    EUSTACIO ATWEL, LUCIA PILPIL and MANUEL MELGAZO,


    Petitioners, vs. CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION,
    INC.,

    CORONA, J.:

    FACTS:

    Emiliano Melgazo founded and organized Concepcion Progressive


    Association. As CPAI president, he bought a parcel of land in behalf
    of the association. The property was later on converted into a wet
    market where agricultural, livestock and other farm products were
    sold. It also housed a cockpit and an area for various forms of
    amusement. The income generated from the property, mostly rentals
    from the wet market, was paid to CPAI. When Emiliano Melgazo died,
    his son, petitioner Manuel Melgazo, succeeded him as CPAI
    president and administrator of the property. On the other hand,
    petitioners Atwel and Pilpil were elected as CPAI vice-president and
    treasurer, respectively. Other elected officers and members formed
    their own group and registered themselves in the Securities and
    Exchange Commission as officers and members of respondent CPAI.
    However, petitioners not listed as members. CPAI alleged that it was
    the owner of the property and petitioners, without authority, were
    collecting rentals from the wet market vendors. Petitioners filed a
    case in the SEC for mandatory injunction where they contended that
    since the property was purchased using the money of petitioner
    Manuel Melgazo's father, it belonged to the deceased and it was
    impossible for the CPAI to have acquired ownership over the property
    in 1968 when it was only in 1997 that it was incorporated and
    registered with the SEC. It ruled that CPA to be one and the same as
    CPAI, CPA as the owner of poperty and not Melgazo. It ruled in favor
    of CPAI. Petitioners went to the CA and contested the jurisdiction of
    the SEC special commercial court over the case. CA affirmed the
    decision.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioners are estopped from questioning
    jurisdiction after participating in the proceeding.

    RULING:

    The Court agreed with the petitioners that estoppel cannot apply
    because a court's jurisdiction is conferred exclusively by the
    Constitution or by law, not by the parties' agreement or by estoppel.
    The jurisdiction of the SEC over intra-corporate controversies and
    other cases enumerated in Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to
    the courts of general jurisdiction.
    In the case at bar, the elements of an intra-corporate controversy are
    not present. The records reveal that petitioners were never officers
    nor members of CPAI. CPAI itself admitted this in its pleadings. In
    fact, petitioners were the only remaining members of CPA which,
    obviously, was not the CPAI that was registered in the SEC. The
    determination as to who is the true owner of the disputed property
    entitled to the income generated therefrom is civil in nature and
    should be threshed out in a regular court - conflict among the parties
    here was outside the jurisdiction of the special commercial court.
    The rule remains that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a
    tribunal that has none over the cause of action or subject matter of
    the case. Unfortunately for CPAI, no exceptional circumstance
    appears in this case to warrant divergence from the rule. Jurisdiction
    by estoppel is not available here.
    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
    decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85170 is
    REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, SEC Case No. 2001-07-
    110 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like