CASE 2011-0185: ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA represented herein by the incumbent Archbishop VS. EDUARDO SORIANO, JR., EDNA YALUN, EVANGELINA ABLAZA, FELICIDAD Y. URBINA, FELIX SALENGA, REYNALDO I. MALLARI, MARCIANA B. BARCOMA, BIENVENIDO PANGANIBAN, BRIGIDA NAVARRO, EUFRANCIA T. FLORES, VICTORIA B. SUDSOD, EUFRONIO CAPARAS, CRISANTO MANANSALA, LILY MASANGCAY, BENJAMIN GUINTO, JR., MARTHA G. CASTRO and LINO TOLENTINO (G.R. NO. 153829); BENJAMIN GUINTO, JR. VS. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA represented herein by the incumbent Archbishop (G.R. NO. 160909) (17 AUGUST 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) SUBJECTS: MOTION TO DISMISS; COLATERAL AND DIRECT ATTACKS; MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION; INJUNCTION. (BRIEF TITLE: ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCH. VS. SORIANO)

==========================

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 153829 is DENIED.  The Decision dated March 18, 2002 and the Resolution dated May 30, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66974 are AFFIRMED.  The motion for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2000(23) is likewise DENIED for lack of merit.   

        No costs.

SO ORDERED.

==========================

SUBJECT/DOCTRINE/DIGEST:

RESPONDENTS FILED CASE AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP (RCA) OF SAN FERNANDO FOR QUIETING OF TITLE. RCA FILED MOTION TO DISMISS. RTC DENIED. CA UPHELD RTC. RCA FILED PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. IS CERTIORARI THE PROPER REMEDY?

NO. THE DISMISSAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS CANNOT BE QUESTIONED IN A CERTIORARI PROCEEDING.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHY?

BECAUSE CERTIORARI WRIT IS A REMEDY TO CORRECT ERROR OF JURISDICTION AND NOT ERROR OF JUDGMENT.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION?

TO FILE AN ANSWER AND INTERPOSE AS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.  This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The appropriate course of action of the movant in such event is to file an answer and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss.  If, later, the decision of the trial judge is adverse, the movant may then elevate on appeal the same issues raised in the motion.^[1][27]  

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT MOTION TO DISMISS CANNOT BE QUESTIONED ON CERTIORARI?

YES. WHEN THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION.^[2][28] THIS EXCEPTION IS, NEVERTHELESS, APPLIED SPARINGLY, AND ONLY IN INSTANCES WHEN THERE IS A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE TRIAL COURT EXERCISED ITS JUDICIAL POWER IN AN ARBITRARY OR DESPOTIC MANNER BY REASON OF PASSION OR PERSONAL HOSTILITY.

        The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion.^[3][28] This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.^[4][29] Further, the abuse of the court’s discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of, law.^[5][30]

        Here, in dismissing the petition for certiorari, the CA did not find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.  The appellate court was not convinced with the RCA’s argument that plaintiffs failed to comply with the condition precedent provided in Article 477^[6][31] of the Civil Code because they allegedly did not have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property.  The CA explained that the requirement stated in Article 477 is not a condition precedent before one can file an action for quieting of title.  Rather, it is a requisite for an action to quiet title to prosper and the existence or nonexistence of the requisite should be determined only after trial on the merits.   The CA also agreed with the trial court in ruling that the RCA cannot raise in a motion to dismiss the ground that the complaint is already barred by laches for it still remains to be established during trial how long the plaintiffs have slept on their rights, if such be the case.  Evidently, the CA is correct in finding that the denial by the RTC of the RCA’s motion to dismiss is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RCA ARGUES THAT THERE IS MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION BECAUSE QUIETING OF TITLE IS SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION        WHILE DECLARATION OF NULLITY IS GOVERNED BY ORDINARY RULES. BOTH RELIEFS ARE BEING SOUGHT BY RESPONDENTS. THEREFORE THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. IS RCA CORRECT?

NO. SECTION 6 OF RULE 2 EXPLICITLY PROVIDES THAT MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION.

Next, the RCA submits that an action for quieting of title is a special civil action covered by Rule 63, while an action for declaration of nullity of title is governed by ordinary rules.  Thus, it contends that these cases should have been dismissed for violation of the rule on joinder of actions under Section 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which requires that the joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules.  Such contention, however, is utterly bereft of merit and insufficient to show that the CA erred in upholding the trial court’s decision. Section 6 of Rule 2 explicitly provides that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RCA ASSERTS THAT QUIETING OF TITLE IS COLLATERAL ATTACK ON ITS TITLE PROHIBITED BY LAW. IS RCA CORRECT?

NO. THE ACTION  FOR THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF OCT NO. 17629 IS A CLEAR AND DIRECT ATTACK ON THE  TITLE.

        The RCA likewise asserts that the case for quieting of title is a collateral attack on its title which is prohibited by law.  However, we agree with the CA in holding that the complaint against the RCA does not amount to a collateral attack because the action for the declaration of nullity of OCT No. 17629 is a clear and direct attack on its title.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHEN IS THERE DIRECT ATTACK?

WHEN THE OBJECTIVE IS TO ANNUL OR SET ASIDE SUCH JUDGMENT, OR ENJOIN ITS ENFORCEMENT.

X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHEN IS AN ATTACK ON TITLE COLLATERAL?

WHEN THE ATTACK IS ONLY AN INCIDENT IN A CASE PRAYING FOR A DIFFERENT RELIEF.

An action is deemed an attack on a title when its objective is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed.  The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement.  On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.^[7][32]

        The complaint filed with the RTC pertinently alleged that the claim of ownership by the RCA is spurious as its title, denominated as OCT No. 17629, is fake for the following reasons: (1) that the erasures are very apparent and the title itself is fake; (2) it was made to appear under Memorandum of Encumbrance Entry No. 1007 that the title is a reconstituted title when in truth, it is not; and (3) the verification reveals that there was no petition filed before any court where an order was issued for the reconstitution and re-issuance of an owner’s duplicate copy.^[8][33]  It is thus clear from the foregoing that the case filed questioning the genuineness of OCT No. 17629 is a direct attack on the title of the RCA.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RCA WON EJECTMENT CASE. PETITIONER GUINTO PRAYS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE  SHERIFF FROM ENFORCING EJECTMENT WRIT. IS THERE BASIS FOR PRELIM INJUNCTION?

NO. THEIR RIGHT TO POSSESSION HAS BEEN DECLARED INFERIOR TO THAT OF RCA BY THE MTC DECISION AND SUCH DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL.

As regards the petition docketed as G.R. No. 160909 which this Court treated as motion for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, Guinto insists that there is a need to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution as it would cause grave and irreparable damage to Guinto, while the RCA would not suffer any damage if it would later be proved that indeed its title is genuine.  

        We disagree.

        Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, enumerates the grounds for the issuance of preliminary injunction, viz:

          SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. – A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

          (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;

          (b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or

          (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

        And as clearly explained in Ocampo v. Sison Vda. de Fernandez:^[9][34]

          To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must show that there exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined. Furthermore, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. The applicant’s right must be clear and unmistakable. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Where the applicant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for injunction.

          A clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be shown. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist an actual right. There must be a patent showing by the applicant that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.

        In this case, the defendants in the ejectment case possess no such legal rights that merit the protection of the courts through the writ of preliminary injunction.  The MCTC has already rendered a decision in favor of the RCA and ordered the defendants therein to vacate the premises.  Their appeal to the RTC was dismissed and the decision has become final.  Evidently, their right to possess the property in question has already been declared inferior or inexistent in relation to the right of the RCA in the MCTC decision which has already become final and executory.^[10][35]

==========================

FIRST DIVISION

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

x- – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before this Court are two petitions for resolution: the first, a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, filed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop (RCA) of San Fernando, Pampanga, assailing the March 18, 2002 Decision^[12][2] and the May 30, 2002 Resolution^[13][3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 66974; and the second, a Petition for Injunction under Rule 58, filed by Benjamin Guinto, Jr. (Guinto), seeking to enjoin the implementation of the Writ of Execution^[14][4] dated October 14, 2003, issued by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Macabebe-Masantol, Pampanga in Civil Case No. 2000(23).

          The facts follow:

          The RCA of San Fernando, Pampanga, represented by Most Rev. Paciano B. Aniceto, D.D., claimed that it is the owner of a vast tract of land located near the Catholic Church at Poblacion, Macabebe, Pampanga and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 17629 issued by the Registry of Deeds of San Fernando on February 21, 1929.^[15][5]   The RCA alleged that several individuals unlawfully occupied the subject land and refused to vacate despite repeated demands.  Having no other recourse, the RCA filed an ejectment case, docketed as Civil Case No. 2000(23), before the MCTC of Macabebe-Masantol, Pampanga against the alleged intruders, namely, Leocadio and Rufina Reyes, Jose Balagtas, Marcial and Victoria Balagtas, Levita Naluz, Dionisio Barcoma, Felicidad Urbina, Justiniano Reyes, Lawrence Muniz, Eduardo Soriano, Cosmer Vergara, Perlita Bustos, Brigida Navarro, Leonoda Cruz, Leonida Manansala, Angelito Juliano, Eduardo Ibay, Edna Yalung, Reynaldo Mallari, Lily Masangcay, Evangelina Ablaza, Crisanto Manansala, Feliza Esguerra, Gloria Manansala, Bienvenido and Felicisima Panganiban, Ofroneo Caparas, Tino Enriquez, Elizabeth and Benjamin Guinto, Felix Salenga, Eleno and Rosala Salenga, Luisa and Domingo Sison, Francia Flores, Eduardo and Rosita Gutierrez, Zosima and Ener Basilio, Andy and Loreto Bonifacio, Peter and Felicisima Villajuan.^[16][6] 

          On the other hand, defendants countered that the RCA has no cause of action against them because its title is spurious. They contended that the subject land belonged to the State, but they have already acquired the same by acquisitive prescription as they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years.  

          After considering the pleadings submitted by the parties, the MCTC rendered decision on September 28, 2001 in favor of the RCA. The trial court held that OCT No. 17629 in the name of the RCA remains valid and binding against the whole world until it is declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, defendants were ordered to vacate the premises and to pay reasonable monthly rentals from August 15, 2000 until they shall have finally vacated the premises.^[17][7] 

          Defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).  However, the appeal was dismissed because of their failure to file the appeal memorandum.  When defendants elevated the case to the CA, their petition for certiorari was not given due course for failure to file the same within the extended period.  Hence, the decision ejecting the defendants from the premises became final.

          Pursuant to Section 21,^[18][8] Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the RCA filed an Urgent Motion for Immediate Issuance of a Writ of Execution, which the MCTC granted in an Order^[19][9] dated February 10, 2003, as follows:

          WHEREFORE, on the basis of the rules and jurisprudence aforecited, the Motion for Execution filed by plaintiff is hereby granted.  Let a writ of execution be issued in connection with this case which is a ministerial duty of the Court. 

            Defendants’ Motion for Inhibition is denied for lack of merit.

            SO ORDERED.^[20][10]   

          Thereafter, the MCTC issued another Order dated October 6, 2003, the pertinent portion of which states:

          Let a writ of execution be issued to implement the Decision dated September 28, 2001.

            No further defendants’ motion to stay execution shall be entertained.

            SO ORDERED.^[21][11]

          Accordingly, a writ of execution^[22][12] was issued commanding the sheriff or his deputies to implement the MCTC Decision.  Thus, Sheriff Edgar Joseph C. David sent the defendants a Notice to Vacate^[23][13] dated December 8, 2003. 

          Seeking to enjoin the implementation of the writ of execution and the notice to vacate, Guinto filed the instant Petition for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),^[24][14] docketed as G.R. No. 160909.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of the ejectment case at the MCTC, some of the defendants therein, namely, Eduardo Soriano, Jr., Edna Yalun, Evangelina Ablaza, Felicidad Y. Urbina, Felix Salenga, Reynaldo I. Mallari, Marciana B. Barcoma, Bienvenido Panganiban, Brigida Navarro, Eufrancia T. Flores, Victoria B. Sodsod, Eufronio Caparas, Crisanto Manansala, Lily Masangcay, Benjamin Guinto, Jr., Martha G. Castro and Lino Tolentino filed Civil Case No. 01-1046(M) against the RCA for Quieting of Title and Declaration of Nullity of Title before the RTC of Macabebe, Pampanga.^[25][15] They claimed that they are in actual possession of the land in the concept of owners and alleged that OCT No. 17629 in the name of RCA is spurious and fake. 

Before filing its Answer, the RCA moved to dismiss the case on grounds of noncompliance with a condition precedent, laches, and for being a collateral attack on its title.  The RCA likewise later filed a supplement to its motion to dismiss. 

In an Order^[26][16] dated June 4, 2001, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss reasoning that when the rules speak of noncompliance with a condition precedent, it could refer only to the failure of a party to secure the appropriate certificate to file action under the Local Government Code, or the failure to exert earnest efforts towards an amicable settlement when the suit involves members of the same family.  The RTC also found that plaintiffs have a cause of action.  Furthermore, the trial court held that RCA’s argument – that the property cannot be acquired by prescription because it has title over it – is a matter of evidence which may be established during the trial on the merits.

Aggrieved, the RCA filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in an Order^[27][17] dated July 24, 2001.  Thereafter, the RCA filed with the CA a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction.^[28][18]

          On March 18, 2002, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision,^[29][19] the dispositive portion of which reads:

            WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

            SO ORDERED.^[30][20]

          A motion for reconsideration^[31][21] of the Decision was filed by the RCA. However, in the Resolution^[32][22] dated May 30, 2002, the CA denied the motion for lack of merit.  Hence, the RCA filed the present petition for review on certiorari,^[33][23] docketed as G.R. No. 153829, assailing the Decision of the CA, as well as its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. 

          On January 14, 2004, we resolved to consolidate G.R. Nos. 160909 and 153829.^[34][24]  Subsequently, the Court resolved to treat the petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a TRO in G.R. No. 160909 as a motion for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction in G.R. No. 153829.^[35][25]

The RCA raises the following issues:

(A)             WHETHER OR NOT CIVIL CASE NO. 01-1046(M) FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AND DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF TITLE IS LEGALLY DISMISSIBLE FOR VIOLATION OF THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT;

and

(B)  WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL ACTION (THE ABOVE MENTIONED CIVIL CASE NO. 01-1046[M]) FILED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS CONSTITUTES A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PETITIONER’S TITLE.^[36][26]               

          Essentially, the issue before us is whether the CA erred in not holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss filed by the RCA.

          We affirm the ruling of the CA.

          Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.  This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The appropriate course of action of the movant in such event is to file an answer and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss.  If, later, the decision of the trial judge is adverse, the movant may then elevate on appeal the same issues raised in the motion.^[37][27]

          The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion.^[38][28] This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.^[39][29] Further, the abuse of the court’s discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of, law.^[40][30]

          Here, in dismissing the petition for certiorari, the CA did not find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.  The appellate court was not convinced with the RCA’s argument that plaintiffs failed to comply with the condition precedent provided in Article 477^[41][31] of the Civil Code because they allegedly did not have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property.  The CA explained that the requirement stated in Article 477 is not a condition precedent before one can file an action for quieting of title.  Rather, it is a requisite for an action to quiet title to prosper and the existence or nonexistence of the requisite should be determined only after trial on the merits.   The CA also agreed with the trial court in ruling that the RCA cannot raise in a motion to dismiss the ground that the complaint is already barred by laches for it still remains to be established during trial how long the plaintiffs have slept on their rights, if such be the case.  Evidently, the CA is correct in finding that the denial by the RTC of the RCA’s motion to dismiss is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 

          Next, the RCA submits that an action for quieting of title is a special civil action covered by Rule 63, while an action for declaration of nullity of title is governed by ordinary rules.  Thus, it contends that these cases should have been dismissed for violation of the rule on joinder of actions under Section 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which requires that the joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules.  Such contention, however, is utterly bereft of merit and insufficient to show that the CA erred in upholding the trial court’s decision. Section 6 of Rule 2 explicitly provides that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.

          The RCA likewise asserts that the case for quieting of title is a collateral attack on its title which is prohibited by law.  However, we agree with the CA in holding that the complaint against the RCA does not amount to a collateral attack because the action for the declaration of nullity of OCT No. 17629 is a clear and direct attack on its title.

          An action is deemed an attack on a title when its objective is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed.  The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement.  On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.^[42][32]

          The complaint filed with the RTC pertinently alleged that the claim of ownership by the RCA is spurious as its title, denominated as OCT No. 17629, is fake for the following reasons: (1) that the erasures are very apparent and the title itself is fake; (2) it was made to appear under Memorandum of Encumbrance Entry No. 1007 that the title is a reconstituted title when in truth, it is not; and (3) the verification reveals that there was no petition filed before any court where an order was issued for the reconstitution and re-issuance of an owner’s duplicate copy.^[43][33]  It is thus clear from the foregoing that the case filed questioning the genuineness of OCT No. 17629 is a direct attack on the title of the RCA.

          As regards the petition docketed as G.R. No. 160909 which this Court treated as motion for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, Guinto insists that there is a need to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution as it would cause grave and irreparable damage to Guinto, while the RCA would not suffer any damage if it would later be proved that indeed its title is genuine.  

          We disagree.

          Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, enumerates the grounds for the issuance of preliminary injunction, viz:

            SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. – A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

            (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;

            (b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or

            (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

          And as clearly explained in Ocampo v. Sison Vda. de Fernandez:^[44][34]

            To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must show that there exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined. Furthermore, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. The applicant’s right must be clear and unmistakable. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Where the applicant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for injunction.

            A clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be shown. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist an actual right. There must be a patent showing by the applicant that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.

          In this case, the defendants in the ejectment case possess no such legal rights that merit the protection of the courts through the writ of preliminary injunction.  The MCTC has already rendered a decision in favor of the RCA and ordered the defendants therein to vacate the premises.  Their appeal to the RTC was dismissed and the decision has become final.  Evidently, their right to possess the property in question has already been declared inferior or inexistent in relation to the right of the RCA in the MCTC decision which has already become final and executory.^[45][35]

          WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 153829 is DENIED.  The Decision dated March 18, 2002 and the Resolution dated May 30, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66974 are AFFIRMED.  The motion for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2000(23) is likewise DENIED for lack of merit.   

          No costs.

SO ORDERED.

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CASE 2011-0184: ATIKO TRANS INC. AND CHENGLIE NAVIGATION CO., LTD. VS. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC. (G.R. NO. 167545, 17 AUGUST 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECT: COURT JURISDICTION (BRIEF TITLE: ATIKO VS. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE)

===================================

DISPOSITIVE:

          WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.  The assailed December 10, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82547 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the judgment insofar as Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd. is concerned is declared VOID for failure to acquire jurisdiction over its person as there was improper service of summons.

          SO ORDERED.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SUBJECT/DOCTRINE/DIGEST

A cursory reading of the issues raised readily reveals that they involve factual matters which are not within the province of this Court to look into. Well-settled is the rule that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law can be raised.  While there are recognized exceptions to this rule,^[1][18]  none is present in this case.  “[A]s a matter of x x x procedure, [this] Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, [especially] when such findings were [affirmed by the RTC and the CA. These] factual determination[s], as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserve great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal x x x.  [I]t is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holding of the lower courts.”^[2][19]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

We are not persuaded.  True, when the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.^[3][20]  However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by defendant’s voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the court’s jurisdiction, as embodied in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, viz:

SEC. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.  The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

On this score, we find for the petitioners.  Before it was amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC,^[4][30] Section 12 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court reads:

SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity.  – When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.

Elucidating on the above provision of the Rules of Court, this Court declared in Pioneer International, Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr.^[5][31] that when the defendant is a foreign juridical entity, service of summons may be made upon:

1. Its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose;

1. The government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not have a resident agent; or,

1. Any of the corporation’s officers or agents within thePhilippines.

In the case at bench, no summons was served upon Cheng Lie in any manner prescribed above.  It should be recalled that Atiko was not properly served with summons as the person who received it on behalf of Atiko, cashier Cristina Figueroa, is not one of the corporate officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.  The MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Atiko not thru valid service of summons but by the latter’s voluntary appearance.  Thus, there being no proper service of summons upon Atiko to speak of, it follows that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie.  To rule otherwise would create an absurd situation where service of summons is valid upon the purported principal but not on the latter’s co-defendant cum putative agent despite the fact that service was coursed thru said agent.  Indeed, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant foreign private juridical entity under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be prior valid service of summons upon the agent of such defendant.

===================================

Republic of thePhilippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

            Where service of summons upon the defendant principal is coursed thru its co-defendant agent, and the latter happens to be a domestic corporation, the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity^[6][1] must be strictly complied with.  Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have acquired jurisdiction over the person of both defendants.  And insofar as the principal is concerned, such jurisdictional flaw cannot be cured by the agent’s subsequent voluntary appearance.

            This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the December 10, 2004 Decision^[7][2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 82547 which affirmed the April 8, 2003 Decision^[8][3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150, Makati City.  Said Decision of the RTC affirmed the August 6, 2002 Decision^[9][4] of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 63, Makati City, which disposed as follows:

                WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered declaring defendants Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd. and Atiko Trans, Inc. solidarily liable to pay plaintiff Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. the following amounts:

1. P205,220.97 as actual damages with interest of 1% per month from 14 December 1999 until full payment;

1. P10,000.00 as Attorney’s fees; and

1. Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.^[10][5]

            Likewise assailed is the CA’s Resolution^[11][6] dated March 16, 2005 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the said December 10, 2004 Decision.

Factual Antecedents

            On December 11, 1998, 40 coils of electrolytic tinplates were loaded on board M/S Katjana in Kaohsiung, Taiwanfor shipment to Manila.  The shipment was covered by Bill of Lading No. KNMNI-15126^[12][7] issued by petitioner Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd. (Cheng Lie) with Oriental Tin Can & Metal Sheet Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Oriental) as the notify party.  The cargoes were insured against all risks per Marine Insurance Policy No. 20RN-18749/99 issued by respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (Prudential).

On December 14, 1998, M/S Katjana arrived in theportofManila.  Upon discharge of the cargoes, it was found that one of the tinplates was damaged, crumpled and dented on the edges.  The sea van in which it was kept during the voyage was also damaged, presumably while still on board the vessel and during the course of the voyage.

Oriental then filed its claim against the policy.  Satisfied that Oriental’s claim was compensable, Prudential paid Oriental P205,220.97 representing the amount of losses it suffered due to the damaged cargo.

Proceedings before the Metropolitan Trial Court

On December 14, 1999, Prudential filed with the MeTC of Makati City a Complaint^[13][8] for sum of money against Cheng Lie and Atiko Trans, Inc. (Atiko).  In addition to the above undisputed facts, Prudential alleged that:

1. Plaintiff (Prudential) is a domestic insurance corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of thePhilippineswith office address at Coyiuto House, 119 Carlos Palanca[,]Jr. St.,LegaspiVillage,MakatiCity;

1. Defendant Cheng Lie Navigation Co. Ltd., is [a] foreign shipping company doing business in the Philippines [thru] its duly authorized shipagent   defendant Atiko Trans Inc. which is a domestic corporation duly established and created under the laws of the Philippines with office address at 7^th Floor, Victoria Bldg., United Nation[s] Ave., Ermita, Manila, where both defendants may be served with summons and other court processes;

1. At all times material to the cause of action of this complaint, plaintiff was and still is engaged in, among others, marine insurance business; Whereas Defendant Cheng Lie Navigation Co. Ltd. was and still is engaged in, among others, shipping, transportation and freight/cargo forwarding business, and as such, owned, operated and/or chartered the ocean going vessel M/S “Katjana” as common carrier to and from any Philippine [port] in international trade [thru] its duly authorized shipagent defendant Atiko Trans Inc. (Both defendants are hereinafter referred to as the “CARRIER”);     

x x x x

9.     Plaintiff, as cargo-insurer and upon finding that the consignee’s insurance claim was in order and compensable, paid the latter’s claim in the amount of P205,220.97 under and by virtue of the aforesaid insurance policy, thereby subrogating herein plaintiff to all the rights and causes of action appertaining to the consignee against the defendants;^[14][9]

On March 20, 2000, Prudential filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default,^[15][10] alleging among others that on March 1, 2000 a copy of the summons was served upon petitioners thru cashier Cristina Figueroa and that despite receipt thereof petitioners failed to file any responsive pleading.  Acting on the motion, the MeTC issued an Order^[16][11] declaring Cheng Lie and Atiko in default and allowing Prudential to present its evidence ex-parte.

On August 6, 2002, the MeTC rendered its judgment by default.  Atiko then filed a Notice of Appeal^[17][12] dated November 4, 2002.

Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals

In its Memorandum of Appeal,^[18][13] Atiko argued that Prudential failed to prove the material allegations of the complaint.  Atiko asserted that Prudential failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that it is a domestic corporation with legal personality to file an action; that Cheng Lie is a private foreign juridical entity operating its shipping business in the Philippines thru Atiko as its shipagent; that Cheng Lie is a common carrier, which owns and operates M/S Katjana; that Prudential was subrogated to the rights of Oriental; and, that Atiko can be held solidarily liable with Cheng Lie. 

Although assisted by the same counsel, Cheng Lie filed its own Memorandum of Appeal^[19][14] maintaining that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person. 

On April 8, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing the appeal and affirming the Decision of the MeTC.  Atiko and Cheng Lie challenged the RTC Decision before the CA via a Petition for Review^[20][15] under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court but the appellate court affirmed the RTC’s Decision.

Hence, this petition.

Issues

In their Memorandum,^[21][16] petitioners raised the following issues:

1. WHETHER X X X THE DECISION OF MAKATI [MeTC] WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY MAKATI RTC AND THE COURT OF APPEALS IS NULL AND VOID FOR FAILURE TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF THE PETITIONERS-DEFENDANTS CONSIDERING THAT THE SUMMONS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED ON THEM AS REQUIRED BY RULE 14 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

1. WHETHER X X X THE RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT EVEN IN DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR WHETHER OR NOT IN DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED CONTROVERTED, HENCE, MUST BE PROVED BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

2.1.  WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF IS OBLIGED TO PROVE ITS LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE EVEN IN DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

2.2.  WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF IS OBLIGED TO PROVE THAT PETITIONER-DEFENDANT ATIKO IS THE SHIPAGENT OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT CHENG LIE EVEN IN DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

2.3.  WHETHER X X X THE TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE OFFERED.

2.4.  WHETHER X X X A MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT ADDRESSED AND SENT TO ONLY ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS WOULD BIND THE OTHER DEFENDANT TO WHOM THE MOTION WAS NOT ADDRESSED AND NOT SENT.^[22][17]

Our Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious.  We shall first tackle the factual matters involved in this case, then proceed with the jurisdictional issues raised.

Petitioners raised factual matters which are not the proper subject of this appeal.

Petitioners contend that the lower courts grievously erred in granting the complaint because, even if they were declared in default, the respondent still has the burden of proving the material allegations in the complaint by preponderance of evidence.  Petitioners further argue that respondent miserably failed to discharge this burden because it failed to present sufficient proof that it is a domestic corporation.  Hence, respondent could not possibly maintain the present action because only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law can be parties to a civil action.  Petitioners also claim that respondent failed to present competent proof that Cheng Lie is a foreign shipping company doing business in thePhilippinesthru its duly authorized shipagent Atiko.  Lastly, petitioners assert that respondent failed to prove that Cheng Lie is a common carrier which owned, operated and/or chartered M/S Katjana thru its duly authorized shipagent Atiko.  Petitioners emphasize that there is no proof, testimonial or otherwise, which would support the material allegations of the complaint.  They also insist that respondent’s witnesses do not have personal knowledge of the facts on which they were examined.

Respondent, for its part, assails the propriety of the remedy taken by the petitioners.  It posits that petitioners advanced factual matters which are not the proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari.  Besides, the lower courts consistently held that the allegations in respondent’s complaint are supported by sufficient evidence.

We agree with respondent. 

A cursory reading of the issues raised readily reveals that they involve factual matters which are not within the province of this Court to look into. Well-settled is the rule that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law can be raised.  While there are recognized exceptions to this rule,^[23][18]  none is present in this case.  “[A]s a matter of x x x procedure, [this] Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, [especially] when such findings were [affirmed by the RTC and the CA. These] factual determination[s], as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserve great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal x x x.  [I]t is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holding of the lower courts.”^[24][19]

MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the person of Atiko.

Petitioners also argue that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Atiko as the summons was received by its cashier, Cristina Figueroa.  They maintain that under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, when the defendant is a domestic corporation like Atiko, summons may be served only upon its president, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel. 

We are not persuaded.  True, when the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.^[25][20]  However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by defendant’s voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the court’s jurisdiction, as embodied in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, viz:

SEC. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.  The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

In the case at bench, when Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal,^[26][21] Memorandum of Appeal,^[27][22] Motion for Reconsideration^[28][23] of the April 8, 2003 Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review,^[29][24] it never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person.  The filing of these pleadings seeking affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the alleged lack of jurisdiction moot.  In Palma v. Galvez,^[30][25] this Court reiterated the oft-repeated rule that “the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.”

Moreover, petitioners’ contention is a mere afterthought.    It was only in their Memorandum^[31][26] filed with this Court where they claimed, for the first time, that Atiko was not properly served with summons.  In La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,^[32][27] it was held that the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be seasonably raised.  Failing to do so, a party who invoked the jurisdiction of a court to secure an affirmative relief cannot be allowed to disavow such jurisdiction after unsuccessfully trying to obtain such relief.^[33][28]

It may not be amiss to state too that in our February 13, 2006 Resolution,^[34][29] we reminded the parties that they are not allowed to interject new issues in their memorandum. 

MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie.

Petitioners likewise challenge the validity of the service of summons upon Cheng Lie, thru Atiko.  They claim that when the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in thePhilippines, service of summons may be made, among others, upon its resident agent.  In this case, however, there is no proof that Atiko is the local agent of Cheng Lie.  

On this score, we find for the petitioners.  Before it was amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC,^[35][30] Section 12 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court reads:

SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity.  – When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.

Elucidating on the above provision of the Rules of Court, this Court declared in Pioneer International, Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr.^[36][31] that when the defendant is a foreign juridical entity, service of summons may be made upon:

1. Its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose;

1. The government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not have a resident agent; or,

1. Any of the corporation’s officers or agents within thePhilippines.

In the case at bench, no summons was served upon Cheng Lie in any manner prescribed above.  It should be recalled that Atiko was not properly served with summons as the person who received it on behalf of Atiko, cashier Cristina Figueroa, is not one of the corporate officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.  The MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Atiko not thru valid service of summons but by the latter’s voluntary appearance.  Thus, there being no proper service of summons upon Atiko to speak of, it follows that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie.  To rule otherwise would create an absurd situation where service of summons is valid upon the purported principal but not on the latter’s co-defendant cum putative agent despite the fact that service was coursed thru said agent.  Indeed, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant foreign private juridical entity under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be prior valid service of summons upon the agent of such defendant.

Also, the records of this case is bereft of any showing that cashier Cristina Figueroa is a government official designated by law to receive summons on behalf of Cheng Lie or that she is an officer or agent of Cheng Lie within the Philippines.  Hence, her receipt of summons bears no significance insofar as Cheng Lie is concerned.  At this point, we emphasize that the requirements of the rule on summons must be strictly followed,^[37][32] lest we ride roughshod on defendant’s right to due process.^[38][33]

With regard to Cheng Lie’s filing of numerous pleadings, the same cannot be considered as voluntary appearance.  Unlike Atiko, Cheng Lie never sought affirmative relief other than the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person.  From the very beginning, it has consistently questioned the validity of the service of summons and the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. 

It does not escape our attention though that Cheng Lie’s pleadings do not indicate that the same were filed by way of special appearance.  But these, to our mind, are mere inaccuracies in the title of the pleadings.  What is important are the allegations contained therein which consistently resisted the jurisdiction of the trial court.  Thus, Cheng Lie cannot be considered to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the courts.^[39][34]

In fine, since the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie, its decision insofar as Cheng Lie is concerned is void.^[40][35]

Cheng Lie was improperly declared in default.

Applying the above disquisition, the MeTC likewise erred in declaring Cheng Lie in default. Settled is the rule that a defendant cannot be declared in default unless such declaration is preceded by a valid service of summons.^[41][36] 

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.  The assailed December 10, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82547 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the judgment insofar as Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd. is concerned is declared VOID for failure to acquire jurisdiction over its person as there was improper service of summons.

            SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

            Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice