Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Batch 1 No. 22 REPUBLIC Vs Estipular - Jmas

    Uploaded by

    Jay Mark Albis Santos
    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements for reconstitution of title under Republic Act No. 2611 are mandatory and jurisdictional. [1] The Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the petitioner failed to post the notice of hearing at the main entrance of the provincial building as required by law. [2] Jurisdiction over a case cannot be conferred by the acquiescence of the courts or the agreement of the parties, but only by the constitution or by law. [3] The trial court's oversight in not including the posting requirement in its order did not excuse the failure to comply fully with the procedures under the statute.

    Copyright:

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

    Batch 1 No. 22 REPUBLIC Vs Estipular - Jmas

    Uploaded by

    Jay Mark Albis Santos
    44 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements for reconstitution of title under Republic Act No. 2611 are mandatory and jurisdictional. [1] The Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the petitioner failed to post the notice of hearing at the main entrance of the provincial building as required by law. [2] Jurisdiction over a case cannot be conferred by the acquiescence of the courts or the agreement of the parties, but only by the constitution or by law. [3] The trial court's oversight in not including the posting requirement in its order did not excuse the failure to comply fully with the procedures under the statute.

    Original Description:

    remedial law jurisdiction

    Original Title

    Batch 1 No. 22 REPUBLIC vs Estipular _jmas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements for reconstitution of title under Republic Act No. 2611 are mandatory and jurisdictional. [1] The Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the petitioner failed to post the notice of hearing at the main entrance of the provincial building as required by law. [2] Jurisdiction over a case cannot be conferred by the acquiescence of the courts or the agreement of the parties, but only by the constitution or by law. [3] The trial court's oversight in not including the posting requirement in its order did not excuse the failure to comply fully with the procedures under the statute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views1 page

    Batch 1 No. 22 REPUBLIC Vs Estipular - Jmas

    Uploaded by

    Jay Mark Albis Santos
    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements for reconstitution of title under Republic Act No. 2611 are mandatory and jurisdictional. [1] The Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the petitioner failed to post the notice of hearing at the main entrance of the provincial building as required by law. [2] Jurisdiction over a case cannot be conferred by the acquiescence of the courts or the agreement of the parties, but only by the constitution or by law. [3] The trial court's oversight in not including the posting requirement in its order did not excuse the failure to comply fully with the procedures under the statute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JAY MARK SANTOS

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


    vs.
    PILAR ESTIPULAR
    (AQUIESCENCE OF THE COURT)

    FACTS:

    This case stemmed when Petitioner, Pilar Estipular, filed a Petition for Reconstitution before the
    Regional Trial Court of La Union. The RTC ordered that a Notice of Hearing be published for
    two successive issues of the Official Gazette and be posted at the main entrance of the Municipal
    Building of Caba, La Union at least thirty (30) days from the initial hearing. The petitioner
    complied and since the evidence is complete and there is no oppositor the RTC rendered decision
    in favor of Estipular.
    OSG appealed the case to CA, contending that the petitioner failed to post the notice of hearing
    to the main entrance of the provincial building as required in 10 Republic Act No. 26 11 thus
    the court did not acquire jurisdiction. The CA still affirmed to the RTC on the ground that
    substantial compliance with the Law thus the court still acquired jurisdiction.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not supposed substantial compliance with the requirements of Republic Act No. 26 is
    sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the trial court over the case.

    RULING:

    No.Requirements for Reconstitution of Title Are Mandatory and Jurisdictional.

    Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred only by the Constitution
    or by law. It cannot be (1) granted by the agreement of the parties; (2) acquired, waived, enlarged
    or diminished by any act or omission of the parties; or (3) conferred by the acquiescence of the
    courts. Republic Act No. 26 11 lays down the special requirements and procedure that must be
    followed before jurisdiction may be acquired over a petition for reconstitution of title.

    It is true, that the root of this failure may be traced when trial court failed to include a directive
    that the Notice of Hearing be posted at the main entrance of the provincial building. However,
    this oversight cannot excuse noncompliance with the requirements of RA No. 26. Under the
    circumstances, it is clear that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because of
    its own lapse, which respondent failed to cure.

    You might also like