Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 816 views

    Heirs of Marasigan v. Marasigan

    Uploaded by

    RENGIE GALO
    The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time in a memorandum before the court. New issues cannot be introduced in a memorandum, which is meant to support arguments already made in previous pleadings. Additionally, defenses like lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, through a motion to dismiss or in the answer to the complaint, otherwise they are considered waived. In this case, lack of jurisdiction was not argued in the initial answer and is not apparent based on the evidence, so it cannot be raised later.

    Copyright:

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

    Heirs of Marasigan v. Marasigan

    Uploaded by

    RENGIE GALO
    816 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time in a memorandum before the court. New issues cannot be introduced in a memorandum, which is meant to support arguments already made in previous pleadings. Additionally, defenses like lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, through a motion to dismiss or in the answer to the complaint, otherwise they are considered waived. In this case, lack of jurisdiction was not argued in the initial answer and is not apparent based on the evidence, so it cannot be raised later.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time in a memorandum before the court. New issues cannot be introduced in a memorandum, which is meant to support arguments already made in previous pleadings. Additionally, defenses like lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, through a motion to dismiss or in the answer to the complaint, otherwise they are considered waived. In this case, lack of jurisdiction was not argued in the initial answer and is not apparent based on the evidence, so it cannot be raised later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    816 views2 pages

    Heirs of Marasigan v. Marasigan

    Uploaded by

    RENGIE GALO
    The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time in a memorandum before the court. New issues cannot be introduced in a memorandum, which is meant to support arguments already made in previous pleadings. Additionally, defenses like lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, through a motion to dismiss or in the answer to the complaint, otherwise they are considered waived. In this case, lack of jurisdiction was not argued in the initial answer and is not apparent based on the evidence, so it cannot be raised later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Topic: Lack of jurisdiction- raised at earliest possible opportunity

    Heirs of Marasigan v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 156078, March 14, 2008

    Facts: Alicia owned in common with her siblings 13 parcels of land with a total area of 496
    hectares. A complaint for judicial partition was filed before the RTC by private respondents
    against Cesar. In response to the complaint, Cesar enumerated several other properties of
    Alicia and wanted them included in the action for partition. The request was contested by the
    respondents on the ground that the properties he enumerated had already been partitioned
    and distributed to the appropriate parties. The RTC decided in favor of the respondents and
    issued an Order of Partition of the Estate of Alicia.

    Due to the different locations of Alicia’s estate, the parties could not agree on how they
    can physically partition the estate. Private respondents filed a Motion to Appoint
    Commissioners following the procedure outlined in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Rule 69 of the Rules
    of Court. The RTC granted the motion and appointed Myrna Badiong and Sandie Dacara as
    commissioners. Cesar failed to nominate a third commissioner despite notice. The two
    Commissioners conducted an ocular inspection. However, Cesar contended that he did not
    receive any notice from the Commissioners to attend the ocular inspection and he was, thus,
    not present on said occasion.

    The Commissioners findings and recommendations states that 47.24 hectares


    represents the 2/12 pro-indiviso share of Alicia Marasigan and the 1/7 shares of each heir is
    equivalent to 6.74 hectares. Considering that the pro-indiviso share is situated in different
    locations, the Commissioners recommended that the heirs may assign their 1/7 share to one of
    the parties willing to buy the same at P 700,000.00 per hectare.

    Cesar opposed the findings and asked for disapproval of the report. The RTC ruled
    approving the recommendations of the Commissioners. Motion for reconsideration was
    denied. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition.
    Subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner, then, filed a petition for
    certiorari with the Supreme Court and raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction and caused of
    action for the first time in their Memorandum.

    Issues: Whether or not lack of jurisdiction can be raised as an additional issue in a


    memorandum before the Supreme Court.

    Ruling: No. The parties were duly informed by the Court in its Resolution dated 17 September
    2003 that no new issues may be raised by a party in his/its Memorandum and the issues raised
    in his/its pleadings but not included in the Memorandum shall be deemed waived or
    abandoned. The raising of additional issues in a memorandum before the Supreme Court is
    irregular, because said memorandum is supposed to be in support merely of the position taken
    by the party concerned in his petition, and the raising of new issues amounts to the filing of a
    petition beyond the reglementary period.35 The purpose of this rule is to provide all parties to
    a case a fair opportunity to be heard. No new points of law, theories, issues or arguments may
    be raised by a party in the Memorandum for the reason that to permit these would be
    offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.36

    Petitioners failed to heed the Court’s prohibition on the raising of new issues in the
    Memorandum.

    Moreover, Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides that:

    SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. – Defenses and objections not pleaded either
    in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the
    pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has not jurisdiction over the subject matter,
    that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
    action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
    claim.

    First, it bears to point out that Cesar, petitioners’ predecessor, did not file any motion to
    dismiss, and his answer before the RTC did not bear the defenses/objections of lack of
    jurisdiction or cause of action on these grounds; consequently, these must be considered
    waived. The exception that the court may still dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction over the
    subject matter, although the same is not pleaded, but is apparent in the pleadings or evidence
    on record, does not find application to the present Petition. Second, petitioners’ arguments37
    on the lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the case more appropriately pertain to venue, rather
    than jurisdiction over the subject matter, and are, moreover, not apparent from the pleadings
    and evidence on record. Third, the property subject of partition is only the 47.2 hectare pro-
    indiviso area representing the estate of Alicia. It does not include the entire 496 hectares of
    land comprising Hacienda Sta. Rita.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy