Sps. LYDIA FLORES-CRUZ and REYNALDO I. CRUZ vs. Sps. LEONARDO and ILUMINADA GOLI-CRUZ, et al.

G.R. No. 172217;  September 18, 2009

Topic: Jurisdiction of the MTC over ejectment cases

FACTS:

• Sometime in 1999, Petitioner Spouses purchased a parcel of land from a relative. The property was situated in Pulong Yantok, Angat, Bulacan. They paid real estate taxes but never occupied the property. Petitioners sold portions to third parties.
• Petitioners discovered sometime in 2000 that Respondents were occupying a section of the land. Petitioners offered to sell the land to them. Since they could not agree on the price, Petitioners demanded that Respondents vacate the land.
• Petitioners filed a case for recovery of possession of the land in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan in 2001.
• Respondents filed a motion to dismiss claiming, that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case as it should have been filed in the MTC since it was a summary action for ejectment under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
• RTC denied the motion to dismiss and eventually decided in favor of Petitioners.
• On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of Respondents and dismissed the complaint. It held that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession because petitioners had been dispossessed of the property for less than a year. It held that the complaint was one for unlawful detainer which should have been filed in the MTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:

No; RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined solely by the allegations in the complaint and not by evidence adduced during trial. One cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint. In this case, the complaint alleged that the Petitioners tolerated the occupation of the Respondents and filed the case with the RTC in less than 1 year from the demand to vacate.

When the case was filed in 2001, Congress had already approved Republic Act No. 7691 which expanded the MTC’s jurisdiction to include other actions involving title to or possession of real property (accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria) where the assessed value of the property does not exceed P20,000 (or P50,000, for actions filed in Metro Manila). The complaint did not contain any allegations as to the value of the property. Thus, the Court could not determine where jurisdiction lies.

Wherefore, petition is denied.

FEDERICO vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 199612, JANUARY 22, 2013

DOCTRINE: Under Sec. 15 of RA 9369 which governs the conduct of automated elections, the Comelec is empowered by law to prescribe such rules so as to make efficacious and successful the conduct of the first national automated election: “the Comelec, which has the constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,”

In resolving that the deadline for all substitutions must be made on or before Dec. 15, 2009 pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 8678, COMELEC did not abuse its discretion.

FACTS: Edna Sanchez and private respondent Maligaya were candidates for the position of municipal mayor of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections. Maligaya was the Liberal Party’s official mayoralty candidate.

On April 27, 2010, Armando Sanchez, husband of Edna and the gubernatorial candidate for the province of Batangas, died. On April 29, 2010, Edna withdrew her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of mayor. She then filed a new COC and the corresponding Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA) for the position of governor as substitute candidate for her deceased husband.

Subsequently, petitioner Renato M. Federico (Federico) filed his COC and CONA as official candidate of the Nationalista Party and as substitute candidate for mayor, in lieu of Edna.

Private Respondent sought to declare petitioner ineligible because his COC was allegedly filed after the deadline had lapsed pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 8678.

However, the COMELEC en banc resolved to give due course to the candidacy of Edna and Petitioner.

However, by the time of the elections, because the ballots had already been printed, the name of Edna was still on the ballots for the position of Mayor of Sto. Tomas against Private Respondent. In fact, Edna garnered the most votes for that election, beating Private Respodent for the position of mayor. Eventually the board ofcanvassers credited the votes of Edna to Petitioner (who was the replacement of Edna).

Private Respondent filed this petition to annul the proclamation of Petitioner Federico.

The COMELEC en banc eventually annulled the proclamation of Petitioner and proclaimed Private Respondent Maligaya as mayor (Maligaya na sya). The COMELEC declared that Petitioner's substitution of Edna was void because if was filed after the period for filing of COCs had lapsed.

Petitioner filed a petitin for certiorari with the Supreme Court. He claimed that Comelec Resolution No. 8678, which fixed a period for the filing of COCs and CONAs cannot prevail over the Omnibus Election code, specifically Sec. 77 which provides that a party's replacement candidate of one who withdraws, dies or is disqualified may be filed no later than mid-day of the elections.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it annulled Federico’s proclamation as the winning candidate on the ground that his substitution as mayoralty candidate was void.

HELD: No, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Comelec is empowered by law to prescribe such rules so as to make efficacious and successful the conduct of the first national automated election. RA 9369 which governs the conduct of automated elections specifically allows COMELEC to set deadlines for the filing of certificates of candidacy etc.

Under Sec. 15, “the Comelec, which has the constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,”

In resolving that the deadline for all substitutions must be made on or before Dec. 15, 2009 pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 8678, COMELEC did not abuse its discretion.

Thus, the substitution of Petitioner was made out of time and was thus void.

Wherefore, Maligaya pa rin si Maligaya.