Scribd
Upload
163 views2 pages

Jurisdiction in Specific Performance Case

This case involves a complaint for specific performance filed by the respondent Jose A. Pobocan against the petitioners Specified Contractors & Development, Inc., Architect Enrique O. Olonan, and his spouse over an alleged oral agreement. The respondent claimed he was promised one residential unit for every building the company constructed as part of his compensation. The RTC granted the petitioner's motion to dismiss, but the CA reversed this decision. The petitioners argue the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did have jurisdiction over the subject matter as the complaint was for specific performance. It also ruled the petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction since they actively participated in the RTC proceedings before raising this issue.

Uploaded by

Rajkumari
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
163 views2 pages

Jurisdiction in Specific Performance Case

This case involves a complaint for specific performance filed by the respondent Jose A. Pobocan against the petitioners Specified Contractors & Development, Inc., Architect Enrique O. Olonan, and his spouse over an alleged oral agreement. The respondent claimed he was promised one residential unit for every building the company constructed as part of his compensation. The RTC granted the petitioner's motion to dismiss, but the CA reversed this decision. The petitioners argue the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did have jurisdiction over the subject matter as the complaint was for specific performance. It also ruled the petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction since they actively participated in the RTC proceedings before raising this issue.

Uploaded by

Rajkumari
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

212472

SPECIFIED CONTRACTORS & DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND SPOUSES ARCHITECT


ENRIQUE O. OLONAN AND CECILIA R. OLONAN, Petitioners
vs.
JOSE A. POBOCAN , Respondent

FACTS:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1under Rule 45 urges this Court to reverse and set
aside the November 27, 2013 Decision2 and April 28, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 99994, and to affirm instead the June 4, 2012 Order 4 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 92, in Civil Case No. Q-11-70338. The court a
quo had granted the Motion to Dismiss5 of Specified Contractors & Development Inc. (Specified
Contractors), and Spouses Architect Enrique O. Olonan and Cecilia R. Olonan (collectively
referred to as petitioners), thereby dismissing the action for specific performance filed by
respondent Jose A. Pobocan.

Respondent was an employee of Specified Contractors & Development, Inc. Architect Olonan
agreed to give respondent one (1) unit for every building Specified Contractors were able to
construct as part of respondent's compensation package to entice him to stay with the company.
After two successful projects, respondent demanded the execution of the Deed of Assignment in
compliance to the oral agreement. Unheeded, he filed a Complaint before the RTC. However,
herein petitioner, instead of filing an answer, interposed a Motion to Dismiss denying the
existence of the alleged oral agreement. Moreover, assuming again that said agreement existed,
the cause of action had long prescribed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the respondent's complaint.

RULING:

YES. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law
and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.
Respondent correctly designated his complaint as one for specific performance consistent with
his allegations and prayer therein. Accordingly, respondent's suit is one that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation and indeed cognizable by the RTC.

While the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of an action, nevertheless, the
party raising such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings
which he questions and he only objects to the court’s jurisdiction because the judgment or the
order subsequently rendered is adverse to him. In this case, petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss,
Reply to the opposition on the motion, and Sur-rejoinder only invoked the defenses of statute of
frauds and prescription before the RTC. It was only after the CA reversed the RTC’s grant of the
motion to dismiss that petitioners raised for the first time the issue of jurisdiction in their Motion
for Reconsideration. Clearly, petitioners are estopped from raising this issue after actively taking
part in the proceedings before the RTC, obtaining a favorable ruling, and then making an issue of
it only after the CA reversed the RTC’s order.

You might also like