Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Tan vs. Cinco Et - Al, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016 (Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction)

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Lanuza
    1) Respondents filed a collection case against Dante Tan in Makati RTC after he failed to repay a loan. Makati RTC ordered the auction of Dante's property. 2) Dante's wife filed a nullification case in Paranaque RTC regarding the auction, claiming the property was their family home. 3) Paranaque RTC ruled in favor of Dante's wife, despite Makati RTC having prior jurisdiction over the collection case. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability by interfering with Makati RTC's order, as they are courts of concurrent jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tan vs. Cinco Et - Al, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016 (Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction)

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Lanuza
    81 views1 page
    1) Respondents filed a collection case against Dante Tan in Makati RTC after he failed to repay a loan. Makati RTC ordered the auction of Dante's property. 2) Dante's wife filed a nullification case in Paranaque RTC regarding the auction, claiming the property was their family home. 3) Paranaque RTC ruled in favor of Dante's wife, despite Makati RTC having prior jurisdiction over the collection case. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability by interfering with Makati RTC's order, as they are courts of concurrent jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Tan vs. Cinco et.al, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016

    Original Title

    Tan vs. Cinco et.al, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016 (Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Respondents filed a collection case against Dante Tan in Makati RTC after he failed to repay a loan. Makati RTC ordered the auction of Dante's property. 2) Dante's wife filed a nullification case in Paranaque RTC regarding the auction, claiming the property was their family home. 3) Paranaque RTC ruled in favor of Dante's wife, despite Makati RTC having prior jurisdiction over the collection case. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability by interfering with Makati RTC's order, as they are courts of concurrent jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views1 page

    Tan vs. Cinco Et - Al, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016 (Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction)

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Lanuza
    1) Respondents filed a collection case against Dante Tan in Makati RTC after he failed to repay a loan. Makati RTC ordered the auction of Dante's property. 2) Dante's wife filed a nullification case in Paranaque RTC regarding the auction, claiming the property was their family home. 3) Paranaque RTC ruled in favor of Dante's wife, despite Makati RTC having prior jurisdiction over the collection case. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability by interfering with Makati RTC's order, as they are courts of concurrent jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction:

    Tan Vs. Cinco et al.


    G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016

    Facts:

    Respondents extended a loan to one Dante Tan which was facilitated by Penta
    Capital. The loan was secured by Dante’s shares in Best World Resources Corp.
    (BWRC). When Dante failed to pay the loan, he proposed to settle it by selling his shares
    in BWRC and assigning the process to the respondents. Dante, however, disappeared,
    leaving his obligation unpaid.

    Respondents files a suit in order to collect the sum of money which resulted to the
    levying on Dante’s property. Despite the order of the court, Dante’s wife, herein
    petitioner, filed in Paranaque RTC a nullification case regarding the auction sale and the
    Deed of Sale of the subject property alleging that the property is their family home.
    Paranaque RTC granted the case favoring the petitioner notwithstanding the order of
    Makati RTC, a co-equal court, which decided the suit first filed by the respondents.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability.

    Ruling:

    Yes, Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability.


    The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
    a co- equal court provides that no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or
    orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief
    sought by the injunction.
    In this case, Paranaque RTC took cognizance of the petitioner’s nullification case
    despite the fact that the collection case from which it emanated falls within the
    jurisdiction of the Makati RTC, hence violated the doctrine of judicial stability. The
    nullification case was improper. The judgment rendered by Makati RTC as well as its
    execution may not be interfered with by Paranaque RTC, a court of concurrent
    jurisdiction, for the reason that the power to open, modify, or vacate such is not only
    possessed but is restricted to the court in which the judgment or order is rendered or
    issued

    You might also like