Scribd
Upload
17 views2 pages

Ricardo Cuartero v. CA

In the case of Ricardo Cuartero vs. Court of Appeals, the petitioner filed a complaint against the Evangelista spouses for a sum of money and damages, leading to a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court. The spouses challenged the attachment in the Court of Appeals, which ultimately granted their petition for certiorari, ruling that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in its decision regarding jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Reigh Harvy Canta
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
17 views2 pages

Ricardo Cuartero v. CA

In the case of Ricardo Cuartero vs. Court of Appeals, the petitioner filed a complaint against the Evangelista spouses for a sum of money and damages, leading to a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court. The spouses challenged the attachment in the Court of Appeals, which ultimately granted their petition for certiorari, ruling that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in its decision regarding jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Reigh Harvy Canta
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

RICARDO CUARTERO vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, ROBERTO


EVANGELISTA and FELICIA EVANGELISTA
G.R. No. 102448
August 5, 1992
GUTIERREZ, JR.,

DOCTRINE
FACTS: On August 20, 1990, petitioner Ricardo Cuartero filed a complaint
before the Regional Trial Court against the private respondents,
Evangelista spouses, for a sum of money plus damages with a prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.

On August 24, 1990, the lower court issued an order granting ex-
parte the petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment.

On September 19, 1990, the writ of preliminary attachment was


issued pursuant to the trial court's order. On the same day, the
summons for the spouses Evangelista was likewise prepared.

The following day, a copy of the writ of preliminary attachment, the


summons and the complaint were all simultaneously served upon the
private respondents at their residence.

Immediately thereafter, Deputy Sheriff Ernesto L. Sula levied,


attached and pulled out the properties in compliance with the court's
directive to attach all the properties of private respondents not
exempt from execution, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to
satisfy the petitioner's principal claim in the amount of
P2,171,794.91.

Subsequently, the spouses Evangelista filed motion to set aside the


order and discharge the writ of preliminary attachment for having
been irregularly and improperly issued.

On October 4, 1990, the lower court denied the motion for lack of
merit.

Private respondents, then, filed a special civil action


for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the orders of the
lower court with a prayer for a restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the judge from taking further
proceedings below.

The Court of Appeals resolved not to grant the prayer for restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction, there being no clear showing
that the spouses Evangelista were entitled thereto.

On June 27, 1991, the Court of Appeals granted the petition


for certiorari and rendered the questioned decision. The motion for
reconsideration filed by herein petitioner Cuartero was denied for
lack of merit in a resolution dated October 22, 1991. Hence, the
present recourse to this Court.

ISSUE: (pls 1. WON THE CA ERRED AND COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF


indicate Y/N DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT THE RTC DID NOT
each issue ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENT SPOUSES.
pls)
2. WON A PROPER GROUND EXISTED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
THE WRIT

RULING: 1. YES. THE ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE RTC DID NOT
ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENT SPOUSES.

You might also like