FRANCO ESGUERRA, Petitioner,

vs.
Ruling:
ALFONSO MANANTAN, DANILO MANANTAN, ARIANG
ANTONIO, AQUILINO CONCEPCION, and FORTUNATO We agree with the appellate court that petitioner is estopped from
MIGUEL, Respondents. questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. Lack of jurisdiction of the
court over an action cannot be waived by the parties or be cured
This case stemmed from the complaint for ejectment filed by by their silence, acquiescence, or express consent. A party may
petitioner Franco Esguerra against respondents before the RTC. assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of
Franco claims he is the registered owner of a parcel of land the proceedings and even on appeal.8 However, participation in
all stages of the proceedings before the trial court, including
surveyed as Lot No. 661, Cad. No. 699, covering an area of
invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively
7,786 square meters, and situated in Barangay San Cristobal,
bars a party by estoppel from challenging the courts jurisdiction.9
Licab, Nueva Ecija. Franco avers that he inherited it from his
father, Pio Esguerra, who had inherited it from his father, Lorenzo Moreover, petitioner never raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction
Esguerra. However, Pio allowed Gaudencio Miguel4 to occupy his in his pleadings before the RTC. It was only in the Court of
property and later mortgaged the land to Gaudencio as evidenced Appeals where he asserted for the first time that the RTC lacked
by a document entitled "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" jurisdiction over the ejectment case. This Court therefore cannot
dated June 6, 1960. In 1979, Gaudencio executed an instrument countenance petitioners adopting inconsistent postures by
denominated as Kasunduan to cancel said deed of sale with the attacking the jurisdiction of the regular courts to which he had
voluntarily submitted. Estoppel bars him from doing so.
right to repurchase.

Before the repurchase of the property, respondents Alfonso

Manantan, Danilo Manantan, Ariang Antonio, Aquilino
Concepcion and Fortunato Miguel constructed their houses on
the lot without the knowledge and consent of Pio.

RTC dismissed the complaint for ejectment and declared null and
void.
appellate court denied the appeal and affirmed the trial courts
decision.

Issue: WON COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED

THAT THE PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING THE
ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.
 arbitration which is also provided in the CBA." The Union
SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. vs SAN MIGUEL opposed the motion to dismiss.
CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTWGO
SMFI concludes that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction
FACTS: respondent was the sole bargaining agent of all over its complaint.
the monthly paid employees of petitioner (SMFI). some
employees of SMFIs Finance Department, through the The Court of Appeals denied SMFI et al.s petition for
Union represented by Edgar Moraleda, brought a certiorari, it holding that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
grievance against Finance Manager Gideon Montesa, for over the complaint of the Union, they having violated the
"discrimination, favoritism, unfair labor practices.," before seniority rule under the CBA by appointing and promoting
George Nava in accordance with Step 1 of the grievance certain employees which amounted to a ULP.
machinery adopted in the CBA forged by SMFI and the
Union. ISSUE: W/N labor arbiter has jurisdiction over the case?

Almost nine months after the grievance meeting was In the case of Silva v. NLRC for a ULP case to be
held, SMFI rendered a "Decision on Step 1 Grievance" cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC to
stating that it was still in the process of completing the exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the allegations in the
"work management review," hence, the Unions requests complaint should show prima facie the concurrence of
could not be granted. two things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA;
AND (2) the violation pertains to the economic
The Union thereupon filed a complaint before the NLRC, provisions of the CBA.
against SMFI, its President Amadeo P. Veloso, and its
Finance Manager Montesa for "unfair labor practice, and Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that "All doubts in
unjust discrimination in matters of promotion." the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
this Code, including implementing rules and regulations,
Instead of filing a position paper as required by the shall be resolved in favor of labor." Since the seniority
Labor Arbiter, SMFI et al. filed a motion to dismiss, rule in the promotion of employees has a bearing on
contending that the issues raised in the complaint were salary and benefits, it may, following a liberal construction
grievance issues and, therefore, "should be resolved in of Article 261 of the Labor Code, be considered an
the grievance machinery provided in the CBA of the "economic provision" of the CBA.
parties or in the mandated provision of voluntary
As above-stated, the Union charges SMFI to have be acting as one corporate entity, and UST may be held liable
promoted less senior employees, thus bypassing others for the alleged obligations due to petitioner.
who were more senior and equally or more qualified. It
petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Voluntary Inhibition[7] on
may not be seriously disputed that this charge is a gross
the ground that Judge Fernandez was an alumnus of respondent
or flagrant violation of the seniority rule under the CBA, a
UST.
ULP over which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.
Judge Fernandez issued an Order[8] inhibiting himself from the
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. case, which was consequently re-raffled to Branch 76 presided
by Judge Alexander S. Balut. Judge Balut dismissed the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner,[9] upholding the
D.M. FERRER & ASSOCIATES CORPORATION v. initial findings of Judge Fernandez declaring that respondent
UST was not a real party-in-interest.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the
G.R. No. 189496 CA. wherein it was dismissed on the ground that a petition
FACTS: under Rule 65 is the wrong remedy to question the RTCs
Order that completely disposes of the case. Instead, petitioner
Petitioner and University of Santo Tomas Hospital, Inc. should have availed itself of an appeal under Rule 41 of the
(USTHI) entered into a Project Management Contract for the Rules of Court.
renovation of the 4th and 5th floors of the Clinical Division
Building, Nurse Call Room and Medical Records, Medical Arts ISSUE:
Tower, Diagnostic Treatment Building and Pay Division Whether or not the case at hand falls as an exception in Sec.
Building. On various dates, petitioner demanded from USTHI 1(g) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
the payment of the construction costs amounting to
P17,558,479.39. However, on 16 April 2008, the University of RULING:
Santo Tomas (UST), through its rector, Fr. Rolando V. Dela Yes.
Rosa, wrote a letter informing petitioner that its claim for
payment had been denied. In Jan-Dec Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[12] we held
that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy
Petitioner posited in part that UST may be impleaded in the to question the dismissal of an action against one of the parties
case under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, while the main case is still pending. This is the general rule in
wherein respondent UST and USTHI would be considered to accordance with Rule 41, Sec. 1(g). In that case, ruled thus:
Evidently, the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's petition for While it is admitted that respondent UST was not a party to the
certiorari from the Order of the RTC dismissing the complaint contract, petitioner posits that the former is nevertheless liable
against respondent. While Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules for the construction costs. In support of its position, petitioner
of Civil Procedure states that an appeal may be taken only from alleged that (1) UST and USTHI are one and the same
a final order that completely disposes of the case, it also corporation; (2) UST stands to benefit from the assets of
provides several exceptions to the rule, to wit: (a) an order USTHI by virtue of the latters Articles of Incorporation; (3)
denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration; (b) an order respondent controls the business of USTHI; and (4) USTs
denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking officials have performed acts that may be construed as an
relief from judgment; (c) an interlocutory order; (d) an order acknowledgement of respondents liability to petitioner.
disallowing or dismissing an appeal; (e) an order denying a
motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any Goyanko vs. UCPB (g.r no 179096)
other ground vitiating consent; (f) an order of execution; (g) a (Wag mo muna isulat)
judgment or final order for or against one or more of several
parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and FACTS:
third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless In 1995, the late Joseph Goyanko Sr.
the court allows an appeal therefrom; and (h) an order invested 2 million pesoseosess with Philippine Asia
dismissing an action without prejudice. In the foregoing Lending investors Inc. (PALII). After his death,
instances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special represented by his son, Goyanko Jr., filed a claim
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. over his estate and at the same time Sr.s
In the present case, the Order of the RTC dismissing the illegitimate family filed a claim as well, over the
complaint against respondent is a final order because it investment to PALII. Due to the proceedings, PALII,
terminates the proceedings against respondent but it falls deposited the proceeds with UCPB under the
within exception (g) of the Rule since the case involves two name Phil Asia: ATF (in trust for) the heirs of the late
defendants, Intermodal and herein respondent and the investor. Thereafter, UCPB allowed PALII to
complaint against Intermodal is still pending. Thus, the withdraw P1.5M under that account. When the
remedy of a special civil action for certiorari availed of by heirs were about to claim the proceeds of the
petitioner before the CA was proper and the CA erred in investment, UCPB refused to restore the amount to
dismissing the petition. (Emphasis supplied)
the petitioner. On litigation, the trial court
disregarded the statement (ITF) to charge UCPB
 with any trust relationship with PALII and the some power of administration other than a mere
decedents heirs. duty to perform a contract although the contract is
On appeal, despite the arguments of the for a third party beneficiary. A declaration of terms
petitioners that a trust was created, the appellate is essential, and these must be stated with
court found against the heirs. In their argument, reasonable certainty in order that the trustee may
the CAs iteration was that the transaction was a administer, and that the court, if called upon so to
mere deposit between UCPB and PALII. do, may enforce, the trust.
The ITF addition has no effect.
ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK (FORMERLY ANCHOR FINANCE
ISSUE: AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION), Petitioner,
WON a trust agreement occurred? vs.
HENRY H. FURIGAY, GELINDA C. FURIGAY, HERRIETTE C.
HELD: FURIGAY and HEGEM C. FURIGAY
No. in order for a trust to come into being,
On April 21, 1999, ASB filed a verified complaint for sum of
Article 1444 of the CC must be satisfied. From the money and damages with application for replevin against Ciudad
facts at hand, the high court found insufficiency. In Transport Services, Inc. (CTS), its president, respondent Henry
fine, the following elements must exist: H. Furigay; his wife, respondent Gelinda C. Furigay; and a "John
Doe." The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 99-865 and
raffled to Branch 143 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City
1. a competent trustor and trustee;
(RTC).4
2. an ascertainable trust res; and
3. sufficiently certain beneficiaries. On November 7, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision5 in favor of
The lack of one is fatal to the existence of a trust. ASB.
Furthermore, there must be a present and complete
While Civil Case No. 99-865 was pending, respondent spouses
disposition of the trust property, notwithstanding
donated their registered properties in Alaminos, Pangasinan, to
that the enjoyment in the beneficiary will take place their minor children, respondents Hegem G. Furigay and Herriette
in the future. It is essential, too, that the purpose C. Furigay. As a result, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos.
be an active one to prevent trust from being 21743,7 21742,8 21741,9 and 2174010 were issued in the names of
executed into a legal estate or interest, and one that Hegem and Herriette Furigay.

is not in contravention of some prohibition of

Claiming that the donation of these properties was made in fraud
statute or rule of public policy. There must also be of creditors, ASB filed a Complaint for Rescission of Deed of
Donation, Title and Damages11 against the respondent spouses Section 1 of Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court requires that
and their children. every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
Section 2 of the same rule defines a cause of action as an act or
Instead of filing an answer, respondents sought the dismissal of omission by which a party violates the right of another. In order
the complaint, principally arguing that the RTC failed to acquire that one may claim to have a cause of action, the following
jurisdiction over their persons as well as over the subject matter elements must concur: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
in view of the failure of the ASB to serve the summons properly whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
and to pay the necessary legal fees. (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or
not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of
RTC Resolutions such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
On September 29, 2006, the RTC issued an Order13 denying the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of
motion to dismiss. damages or other appropriate relief.19 In other words, "a cause of
action arises when that should have been done is not done, or
RTC explained that the service of summons by publication made that which should not have been done is done."20
by ASB was valid because respondents whereabouts could not
have been ascertained with exactitude and because Section 14, Moreover, it is not enough that a party has, in effect, a cause of
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court did not distinguish what kind of action.
action it would apply.
The rules of procedure require that the complaint must contain a
On appeal, the CA agreed with ASB that its complaint should not concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting
have been dismissed on the ground that it failed to pay the the plaintiff's cause of action. "The test of the sufficiency of the
correct docket fees. It stated that the lack of specific amount of facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the
actual damages and attorneys fees in ASBs complaint did not, facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the
by itself, amount to evident bad faith. same in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff."22 The focus is on
the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. Failure
to make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the
complaint warrants its dismissal.
Ruling

The Court finds the petition bereft of merit.