You are on page 1of 5

Department Of Agrarian Reform vs. Trinidad Valley Realty & Devt. Corp. et al.

G.R. No. 173386, February 11, 2014


Facts: Trinidad Valley Realty and Development Corporation, et al. are the registered owners of a
parcel of land in Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. A
portion of this land was awarded by respondent, DAR to beneficiaries of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program. Trinidad opposed this move in the RTC and alleged that: DAR
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the valuation by
Land Bank is not just compensation, the register of deeds cannot cancel their title without a court
order, and that Land Bank together with the LRA and Register of deeds committed grave abuse
of discretion when they cooperated to commit the act. In its answer, DAR asserted that
jurisdiction over all matters concerning agrarian reform exclusively belongs to DAR and that the
RTCs jurisdiction in agrarian reform matters is limited only to the determination of just
compensation and prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657. The RTC ruled in favor of
Trinidad claiming that it has jurisdiction. On appeal, the CA set aside the lower courts decision
citing that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the said case hence this petition.
Issue: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the case at bar.
Held: No. In view of Section 54 of RA 6657; the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
admitting the amended petition as it did not have jurisdiction over both the petition and amended
petition filed by Trinidad et al. which clearly provides that it is the CA, and not the RTC, which
has jurisdiction over the case. It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a
court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the
filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined
exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or
agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by
their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court
nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. The
nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based
on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in
the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by
the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Section 54 of
RA 6657 leaves no room for doubt that decisions, orders, awards or rulings of the DAR may be
brought to the CA by certiorari and not with the RTC through an ordinary action for cancellation
of title. The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial
evidence. The Court likewise ruled in the similar case of DAR v. Cuenca that "[a]ll controversies

on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that
are also legal or constitutional in nature." Given our ruling that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over
the instant case, we find no necessity to address the other issues raised in the three consolidated
petitions. The petition is denied.

William Co a.k.a. Xu Quing He vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products


G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014
Facts: New Prosperity Plastic Products represented by Ms. Elizabeth Uy, filed a criminal case
against Co for his alleged violation of BP Bilang 22. Due to the non-appearance of Ms. Uy and
her counsel in the first trial, the case was provisionally dismissed. Uy, through counsel, filed a
Motion to Revive the Criminal Cases. Hon. Belen B. Ortiz, then Presiding Judge of the MeTC
Branch 49, granted the motion and denied Cos motion for reconsideration. When Co moved for
recusation, Judge Ortiz inhibited herself from handling the criminal cases. The cases were,
thereafter, raffled to the MeTC Branch 50 of Caloocan City. Co filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO)/writ of
preliminary injunction before the RTC of Caloocan City challenging the revival of the criminal
cases. It was, however, dismissed for lack of merit. Co then filed a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 171096
which was dismissed as per Resolution dated February 13, 2006.There being no motion for
reconsideration filed, the dismissal became final and executory on March 20, 2006. Before the
MeTC Branch 50, Co filed a "Motion for Permanent Dismissal" on. Uy opposed the motion,
contending that the motion raised the same issues already resolved with finality by this Court in
G.R. No. 171096. In spite of this, Judge Esteban V. Gonzaga issued an Order granting Cos
motion. When the court subsequently denied Uys motion for reconsideration, Uy filed a petition
for certiorari before the RTC of Caloocan City. Hon. Judge Adoracion G. Angeles of the RTC
Branch 121 acted favorably on the petition, annulling and setting aside the Orders and directing
the MeTC Branch 50 to proceed with the trial of the criminal cases. Co then filed a petition for
certiorari before the CA, which, as aforesaid, dismissed the petition and denied his motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this present petition with prayer for TRO/WPI.
Issue: Whether the dismissal of the criminal cases against the petitioner, on the ground of denial
of his right to speedy trial, constitutes final dismissal of these cases.
Held: No. Co argues that the June 9, 2003 Order provisionally dismissing the criminal cases
should be considered as a final dismissal on the ground that his right to speedy trial was denied.

We disagree. Cos charge that his right to a speedy trial was violated is baseless. Obviously, he
failed to show any evidence that the alleged "vexatious, capricious and oppressive" delay in the
trial was attended with malice or that the same was made without good cause or justifiable
motive on the part of the prosecution. This Court has emphasized that "speedy trial is a relative
term and necessarily a flexible concept." In determining whether the accused's right to speedy
trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings.The
factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of
the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. Surely, mere mathematical
reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday life must be
regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all, do not exist in a vacuum, and that particular
regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. "While the Court
recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of
justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.
Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what
offend the right of the accused to speedy trial." Petition is denied.

Primanila Plans, Inc. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission


G.R. No. 193791, August 02, 2014
Facts: Primanila then operated as a pre-need company and maintained a business office in
Makati City. Based on its findings, the SEC declared that Primanila committed a flagrant
violation of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as The Securities Regulation Code (SRC),
particularly Section 16. It also breached the New Rules on the Registration and Sale of
Pre-Need Plans, specifically Rule Nos. 3 and 15 thereof. The SEC then issued the subject cease
and desist order in order to prevent further violations and in order to protect the interest of its
plan holders and the public. Feeling aggrieved, Primanila filed a Motion for Reconsideration
arguing that it was denied due process as the order was released without any prior issuance by
the SEC of a notice or formal charge that could have allowed the company to defend itself. On
June 5, 2008, the SEC issued its Order13 denying Primanilas motion for reconsideration for lack
of merit. The cease and desist order issued on April 9, 2008 was then made permanent.
Unyielding, Primanila appealed to the CA via a petition for review. On March 9, 2010, the CA
rendered its decision dismissing the petition and affirming in toto the issuances of the SEC.
Issue: Whether Primanila was given due process notwithstanding the SECs immediate issuance
of the cease and desist order.
Held: Yes. Contrary to its stance, Primanila was accorded due process notwithstanding the SECs
immediate issuance of the cease and desist order on April 9, 2008. The authority of the SEC and
the manner by which it can issue cease and desist orders are provided in Section 64 of the SRC.
The law is clear on the point that a cease and desist order may be issued by the SEC motu

proprio, it being unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an aggrieved party. A
prior hearing is also not required whenever the Commission finds it appropriate to issue a cease
and desist order that aims to curtail fraud or grave or irreparable injury to investors. There is
good reason for this provision, as any delay in the restraint of acts that yield such results can only
generate further injury to the public that the SEC is obliged to protect. To equally protect
individuals and corporations from baseless and improvident issuances, the authority of the SEC
under this rule is nonetheless with defined limits. A cease and desist order may only be issued by
the Commission after proper investigation or verification, and upon showing that the acts sought
to be restrained could result in injury or fraud to the investing public. Without doubt, these
requisites were duly satisfied by the SEC prior to its issuance of the subject cease and desist
order. The SEC was not mandated to allow Primanila to participate in the investigation
conducted by the Commission prior to the cease and desist orders issuance. Given the
circumstances, it was sufficient for the satisfaction of the demands of due process that the
company was amply apprised of the results of the SEC investigation, and then given the
reasonable opportunity to present its defense. Primanila was able to do this via its motion to
reconsider and lift the cease and desist order. After the CED filed its comment on the motion,
Primanila was further given the chance to explain its side to the SEC through the filing of its
reply. Trite to state, a formal trial or hearing is not necessary to comply with the requirements
of due process. Its essence is simply the opportunity to explain ones position. Petition is
denied.
People of the Philippines vs. Sukarno Junaide Y Agga
G.R. No. 193856, April 21, 2014
Facts: Junaide was caught in an entrapment operation for selling illegal drugs. Subsequently, the
police brought accused Junaide to the police station where SPO1 Mirasol marked the four
sachets seized from him and turned these over to the case investigator, SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr.
The latter then turned over the seized items to the police crime laboratory. The sachet Junaide
sold was found to contain 0.0101 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; the other
sachets contained a total of 0.0235 gram. Accused Junaide, on the other hand, testified that he
was napping at home when sounds of commotion outside his house woke him up. As he took a
look, he saw people being chased and his neighbors getting arrested. Junaide left his house a
little later to fetch his nephew from school but while waiting for the boy, two armed men alighted
from a white jeep and handcuffed him. They frisked him but found nothing. They showed him a
sachet of shabu and said that they would use it as evidence against him. Junaide later identified
the two men as SPO1 Roca and SPO1 Mirasol. Two neighbors claimed that they had seen the
incident and corroborated Junaides story. SPO1 Roca testified that he marked the plastic sachet
of shabu that he bought with his initials "RR" but when the supposed sachet was presented to
him in court for identification, it instead carried the marking "RR-1." This may be just a mistake
but he denied having made a mistake and admitted that the "RR-1" marking could have been
made by just anybody.

Issue: Whether Junaide is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


Held. No. In a prosecution for the sale and possession of the prohibited drugs known as shabu,
the State does not only carry the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense. It also
bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State would not have proved
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. And, to prove the corpus delicti, it is
indispensable for the prosecution to show that the dangerous drugs subject of the sale and
examined in the police laboratory are the same drugs presented in court as evidence. The first
stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or related items. Marking is the
affixing of the initials or other identifying signs on the seized items by the arresting officer or the
poseur-buyer. This must be done in the presence of the accused shortly after arrest. SPO1 Roca
may have truly marked the item of shabu he seized from accused Sukarno as "RR" which he
insisted he did. Someone else, therefore, replaced the item by another one, now marked as "RR1." Indeed, Roca has not ruled out the possibility that the latter marking on the shabu item
presented in court may have been made by someone else. This leads the Court to conclude that
there may have been switching of evidence in the selling charge. Guilt in that charge has not,
therefore, been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

You might also like