TUJAN-MILITANTE vs NUSTAD

TAGS: JURISDICTION; NOTARIAL DOC

TUJAN-MILITANTE vs NUSTAD

 G.R. No. 209518

FACTS:

Nustad, a Norwegian, filed a petition ordering Militante to surrender to the Register of Deeds the owner's duplicate copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title which 'were all issued in Nustad's name. 

Instead of filing an Answer, Tujan-Militante filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings. She averred that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person as she was not able to receive summons. She further alleged that the Power of Attorney executed by Nustad in favor of her Atty. is void and non-existent.

The CA recognized the jurisdictional defect over the person of Tujan-Militante, but nevertheless ruled that the flaw was cured by Tujan-Militante's filing of her Motion.

Tujan-Militante filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution. 

RULING:

(a) As to the issue on jurisdiction, a trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by service of summons. However, it is equally significant that even without valid service of summons, a court may still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, if the latter voluntarily appears before it.

 Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 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 of relief aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

By seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court, Militante deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure the affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. The subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration which sought for affirmative reliefs is tantamount to voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of such court. 


(b) With respect to the power of attorney notarized abroad, the Court held that the power of attorney must comply with the requirements set forth under Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court in order to be considered as valid.

Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that:

Section 24. Proof of official record.- The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. 

As the Rules explicitly provide that the required certification of an officer in the foreign service refers only to written official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the Philippines, or of a. foreign country, as found in Section 19(a), Rule 132, such enumeration does not include documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad.

With all these, the Court ruled on the validity of the subject notarial document. What is important is that Nustad certified before a commissioned officer clothed with powers to administer an oath that she is authorizing Atty. Lucila to institute the petition before the court a quo on her behalf.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985 NEPOMUCENO vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a last Will and Testament duly signed by him. In the said Will, the testator named and appointed herein petitioner as his sole and only executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner.   ISSUE: Whether the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.   HELD: The petitioner submits th...
Read more

VALENCIDES VERCIDE vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA T. HERNANDEZ

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1265               April 6, 2000 VALENCIDES VERCIDE vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA T. HERNANDEZ, Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Clarin and Tudela, Misamis Occidental FACTS: Valencides Vercide and his wife filed for recovery of possession of a parcel of land against Daria Lagas Galleros. The land is located in Upper Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental. Defendant Galleros is a resident of the same municipality, while complainant and his wife are residents of Dipolog City. Because of this fact, the case was filed in court without prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. ISSUE: Whether or not Lupong Tagapamayapa has jurisdiction over the case. HELD: According to several cases decided by the Honorable Supreme Court, it was ruled that where parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or in adjoining barangays, there is no requirement for them to submit their dispute involving real property to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Lupon sha...
Read more

JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG, Petitioners, v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Cebu City, Branch 20, and THE CITY OF CEBU, Respondents. G. R. No. 126661. December 3, 1999 PARDO, J. FACTS : On January 3, 1996, the position of City Director, Cebu City Police Command (chief of police) became vacant after P/Supt. Antonio Enteria was relieved of command. Regional Director Jose Andaya submitted to Mayor Alvin Gracias a list of five (5) eligibles for the mayor to choose one to be appointed as the chief of police of Cebu City. The mayor did not choose anyone from the list of five (5) recommendees because the name of certain P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento was not included therein. However, Andaya refused to agree to Mayor Garcias request to include the name of PCI Sarmiento in the list of police officers for appointment by the mayor. His refusal was based on his contention that Sarmiento was not qualified for the position of chief of police because he failed to suffice the minimum qualificati...
Read more