Back to Index
1977 / Nov

G.R. No. L-25891 - Benedicto M. Javier vs. Dominga Vda De Cruz


Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-25891 November 29, 1977

BENEDICTO M. JAVIER, as administrator of the Estate of Eusebio Cruz,petitioner,
vs.
DOMINGA VDA. DE CRUZ, and LEONILA, ROMAN, ELISEO, LIBERATA, and MELECIO, all surnamed CRUZ,respondents.

Jose F. Aguirre for petitioner.

Pedro A. Manzanares for respondents.


FERNANDEZ,J.:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 5996 entitled"Benedicto M. Javier, etc. vs. Dominga Vda. de Cruz, et al."the dispositive part of which reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered one in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the two above-entitled cases, dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction, ordering the plaintiff to pay attorney's fees in the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and condemning the said plaintiff to pay the costs of suit.

IT IS ORDERED. Pasig, Rizal, August 29, 1962. (Sgd.) Andres Reyes

( /t/ ) ANDRES REYES
Judge1

The Court of Appeals, in a resolution promulgated on March 19, 1966 certified to the Supreme Court the case because "the value of the property in question is more than half a million pesos ..." hence "is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court."2

On February 1, 1960 Benedicto M. Javier, as administrator of the Estate of Eusebio Cruz, instituted against Dominga Vda. de Cruz and her children Civil Case No. 5996 to declare null and void a deed of sale of a part of a parcel of land located in Barrio San Isidro, Taytay, Rizal containing an area of 182,959 square meters and assessed at P4,310.00 under Tax No. 9136 under Tax No. 9136 in the name of Estate of E. Cruz.

The amended complaint stated that Eusebio Cruz, who died on February 2, 1941 at the age of 100 years without leaving any will nor compulsory heirs, was the absolute and exclusive owner of a parcel of mountainous and unimproved land situated in sitio Matogalo, Taytay, Rizal which he inherited from his forebears, described therein; that during his lifetime, Eusebio Cruz had been living with one Teodora Santos 'without the sanction of marriage"; that Teodora Santos had with her as distant relatives and protegees the brothers Gregorio Cruz and Justo Cruz; that Gregorio Cruz was the father of Delfin Cruz, deceased husband of defendant Dominga Vda. de Cruz and father of defendants Leonila, Roman, Eliseo, Leberata and Melecio, all surnamed Cruz; that on January 16, 1941 Delfin Cruz, by means of deceit and in collusion with persons among them his father Gregorio Cruz made Eusebio Cruz, who could read and write, stamp his thumbmark on a deed of sale of a portion of the land described in the complaint consisting of 26,577 square meters for the sum of P700.00 in favor of said Delfin Cruz; that at that time Delfin Cruz did not have theithin thirty days from submittal of the case for decision, but the validity of the law cannot be seriously challenged."14

Petitioner fiscal, as already stated, filed the informations in the ten cases with the Circuit Criminal Court rather than with the respondent judge's court to mitigate the latter court's caseload in accordance with the purpose of the Circuit Criminal Court law or at the request of the offended parties and complainants.ℒαwρhi৷Since the filing of the information or complaint "supplies -the occasion for the exercise of jurisdiction vested by law in a particular court"15and the law confers concurrent jurisdiction in the Circuit Criminal Court, the said court properly assumed jurisdiction over the said cases and there is no lawful basis for respondent judge's prayer that said cases be returned to his court "for the lawful actions which are needed on them" and to set at naught the judgments of conviction already rendered by the Circuit Criminal Court in some of the cases and the other proceedings therein.

For administrative and record purposes, however, petitioner fiscal should have promptly and in due course advised the clerk of respondent judge's court that the informations had been filed with the Circuit Criminal Court. Petitioner fiscal recognized this oversight and duly "apologized humbly" to respondent judge and pleaded an "acute lack of personnel in his office" in extenuation. Under the circumstances and considering that petitioner was only discharging his duty according to his best lights, and could not be said to have in any way acted arbitrarily or in bad faith in filing the informations with the Circuit Criminal Court, his apology could have been graciously accepted by respondent judge with an admonition to exercise greater care in the future, in lieu of the unwarranted imposition of punitive fines in the total sum of P 1,000.00.

ACCORDINGLY,the questioned contempt orders and fines imposed therein are annulled and set aside. Without costs.

Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez and Guerrero JJ., concur.


Footnotes

1Nine cases were docketed as TM-355, TM-352, TM-251, TM-282, TM-33-1, TM-45, TM-239, TM-247 and TM-389. The 10th case, docketed as TM-1 03, was originally docketed as CCC-VII-960, having been filed directly for preliminary investigation with the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig Rizal (not by the municipal court) after which the information was filed by petitioner fiscal with said court under Rule 112, sec. 13. Rollo, page 23.

2As provided by Rule 112, section 12, Rules of Court.

3A Computation of the docket numbers given the ten cases at respondent judge's court ranging from TM-45 to TM-389 indicates that there was a total number of 344 cases docketed therein duringthe period in question, out of which the information in these ten cases where filed directly with the Circuit Criminal Court (less than 1/3 of 1% of the 344 docketed cases).

4Collector of Customs vs. Villaluz, 71 SCRA 356 (1976).

5Annexes G to K, petition.

6Annex N, petition, Records of this Court, L-45408-08 where the Of Emilio and Mundo Orbistondo have been elevated or automatic review shown that Antonio did in fact die on May 19, 1977 of PTB.

7Annex M, petition.

8Annexes A to F, petition.

9The rule provides: "SEC. 12. Transmission of record Upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the judge or corresponding officer shall transmit without delay to the clerk of the Court of First Instance having jurisdiction of the offense the record of the case, including (a) the warrant if the arrest was by virtue of a warrant, and the written testimony in support of the same; (b) an abstract of the testimony of the witnesses at the preliminary investigation; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused; (d) the person of the accused if not on bail; and (e) his findings from the preliminary investigation." (Rule 112)

1045 SCRA 467. 472 (1972), per Reyes, J.B.L., J.

11Ass't. Fiscal of Bataan vs. Dollete, 103 Phil. 914 (1958).

12Cf Administrative Order No. 274 of the Department of Justice which authorizes fiscals and their assistants to file from 15 to 30 cases a month with the Circuit Criminal Courts.

13SCRA 324, 333 (1971): emphasis supplied.

14To obviate any misapprehension that the fiscal's choice of forum may be exercised arbitrarily or motivated by considerations other than the interests of justice, the Court expressed the desirability of the Secretary of Justice's issuing definite administrative guidelines for the fiscal's exercise of such choice.

15Arcaya vs. Teleron, 57 SCRA 363, 366 (1974).