04/02/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
jurisdiction lies with the Manila RTC. The Malaybalay RTC denied the motion,
however, and proceeded to hear CMU's application for preliminary injunction.
Meanwhile, respondents NCIP, et al moved for partial reconsideration of the RTC's
order denying their motion to dismiss.
On October 27, 2003, after hearing the preliminary injunction incident, the RTC
issued a resolution granting NCIP, et al's motion for partial reconsideration and
dismissed CMU's action for lack of jurisdiction. Still, the RTC ruled that Presidential
Proclamation 310 was constitutional, being a valid State act. The RTC said that the
ultimate owner of the lands is the State and that CMU merely held the same in its
behalf. CMU filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution but the RTC denied
the same on April 19, 2004. This prompted CMU to appeal the RTC's dismissal order
to the Court of Appeals (CA) Mindanao Station.[2]
CMU raised two issues in its appeal: 1) whether or not the RTC deprived it of its right
to due process when it dismissed the action; and 2) whether or not Presidential
Proclamation 310 was constitutional.[3]
In a March 14, 2008 decision,[4] the CA dismissed CMU's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, ruling that CMU's recourse should have been a petition for review on
certiorari filed directly with this Court, because it raised pure questions law--bearing
mainly on the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 310. The CA added that
whether the trial court can decide the merits of the case based solely on the
hearings of the motion to dismiss and the application for injunction is also a pure
question of law.
CMU filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA's order of dismissal but it denied
the same,[5] prompting CMU to file the present petition for review.
The Issues Presented
The case presents the following issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in not finding that the RTC erred in dismissing its
action for prohibition against NCIP, et al for lack of jurisdiction and at the same
time ruling that Presidential Proclamation 310 is valid and constitutional;
2. Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed CMU's appeal on the ground that it
raised purely questions of law that are proper for a petition for review filed
directly with this Court; and
3. Whether or not Presidential Proclamation 310 is valid and constitutional.
The Court's Rulings
One. The RTC invoked two reasons for dismissing CMU's action. The first is that
jurisdiction over the action to declare Presidential Proclamation 310 lies with the RTC
of Manila, not the RTC of Malaybalay City, given that such action relates to official
acts of the Executive done in Manila. The second reason, presumably made on the
assumption that the Malaybalay RTC had jurisdiction over the action, Presidential
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54430
2/6