Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 159 views

    GR 174908 Darma Maslag V Elizabeth Monzon Et Al

    Uploaded by

    keithnavalta
    This case involves a land dispute between Darma Maslag and Elizabeth Monzon over a parcel of land totaling 18,295 square meters. Maslag contributed funds for the surveying and titling of the land, but when the title was issued it only included Monzon and William Geston as owners, fraudulently omitting Maslag. Maslag filed an action for nullity of the title against Monzon in MTC, which found Monzon guilty of fraud. Monzon appealed to RTC, which reversed the MTC decision. Maslag then appealed to CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding the proper remedy was a petition for review since RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction over the MTC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed,

    Copyright:

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

    GR 174908 Darma Maslag V Elizabeth Monzon Et Al

    Uploaded by

    keithnavalta
    159 views2 pages
    This case involves a land dispute between Darma Maslag and Elizabeth Monzon over a parcel of land totaling 18,295 square meters. Maslag contributed funds for the surveying and titling of the land, but when the title was issued it only included Monzon and William Geston as owners, fraudulently omitting Maslag. Maslag filed an action for nullity of the title against Monzon in MTC, which found Monzon guilty of fraud. Monzon appealed to RTC, which reversed the MTC decision. Maslag then appealed to CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding the proper remedy was a petition for review since RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction over the MTC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed,

    Original Title

    GR 174908 Darma Maslag v Elizabeth Monzon et al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a land dispute between Darma Maslag and Elizabeth Monzon over a parcel of land totaling 18,295 square meters. Maslag contributed funds for the surveying and titling of the land, but when the title was issued it only included Monzon and William Geston as owners, fraudulently omitting Maslag. Maslag filed an action for nullity of the title against Monzon in MTC, which found Monzon guilty of fraud. Monzon appealed to RTC, which reversed the MTC decision. Maslag then appealed to CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding the proper remedy was a petition for review since RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction over the MTC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed,

    Copyright:

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

    GR 174908 Darma Maslag V Elizabeth Monzon Et Al

    Uploaded by

    keithnavalta
    This case involves a land dispute between Darma Maslag and Elizabeth Monzon over a parcel of land totaling 18,295 square meters. Maslag contributed funds for the surveying and titling of the land, but when the title was issued it only included Monzon and William Geston as owners, fraudulently omitting Maslag. Maslag filed an action for nullity of the title against Monzon in MTC, which found Monzon guilty of fraud. Monzon appealed to RTC, which reversed the MTC decision. Maslag then appealed to CA, which dismissed the appeal, finding the proper remedy was a petition for review since RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction over the MTC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed,

    Copyright:

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

    GR 174908 Darma Maslag v Elizabeth Monzon et al.

    FACTS: Sometime in the year 1987, Elizabeth Monzon, the owner of the adjacent parcel of land
    being occupied by Darmag Maslag, informed Maslag that the respective parcels of land being
    claimed by them now be titled. A suggestion was, thereafter made, that those who were
    interested to have their lands titled, will contribute to a common fund for the surveying and
    subsequent titling of the land.

    Since Maslag had, for so long, yearned for a title to the land she occupies, she contributed to
    the amount being requested by Elizabeth Monzon.

    But despite the assurance of subdivided titles, when the title was finally issued by the Registry
    of Deeds, the same was only in the name of Elizabeth Monzon and William Geston. The name
    of Darma Maslag was fraudulently, deliberately and in bad faith omitted. Thus, the title to the
    property to the extent of 18, 295 square meters, was titled solely in the name of Elizabeth
    Monzon.

    Darmag Maslag filed an action for nullity of OCT against Elizabeth Monzon in the MTC of La
    Trinidad, Benguet. To which the court found Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT.

    Monzon appealed to the RTC and upon going to the record, the court decided that the MTC has
    no jurisdiction. It held further that it will take cognizance to the case pursuant to Section 8, Rule
    40 of the Rules of Court, and asked both parties to submit additional evidence to be tried
    therein. Both parties, however, did not submit additional evidence.

    After trial, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and ordered Maslag to turn over the
    possession of the land with an amount of Php12,400 she presently occupies to Monzon. Maslag
    appealed the decision of the RTC reversing the MTC pronouncement to the Court of Appeals
    The CA dismissed Maslag's appeal as it found that the proper remedy is a Petition for Review
    under Rule 42, and not an ordinary appeal. Maslag filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
    was subsequently denied.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the
    petitioner.

    RULING: Yes. There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of
    the fact of law. The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC
    exercised its original jurisdiction. The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in
    cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions.

    As discussed above, the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of
    the case; hence, there is no other way the RTC could have taken cognizance of the case and
    review the court a quo's Judgment except in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

    To reiterate, only statutes can confer jurisdiction. Court issuances cannot seize or appropriate
    jurisdiction. It has been repeatedly held that “any judgment, order or resolution issued without
    [jurisdiction] is void and cannot be given any effect.” By parity of reasoning, an order issued by a
    court declaring that it has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
    when under the law it has none cannot likewise be given effect. It amounts to usurpation of
    jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced. Since BP 129 already apportioned the jurisdiction of
    the MTC and the RTC in cases involving title to property, neither the courts nor the petitioner
    could alter or disregard the same. Besides, in determining the proper mode of appeal from an
    RTC Decision or Resolution, the determinative factor is the type of jurisdiction actually exercised
    by the RTC in rendering its Decision or Resolution.

    You might also like