Scribd
Upload
393 views1 page

Latorre v. Latorre: Jurisdiction Dispute

Petitioner filed a case in the RTC of Muntinlupa City against her son and another individual regarding a parcel of land they co-owned that was leased and declared solely owned by the son. The RTC denied the respondent's motion to dismiss. However, the RTC later dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as it should have been filed in Makati City where the land was located. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that it could not examine the probative value of evidence or adjudicate the case on its merits, as that should be done by lower courts. It also held that direct filing to the Supreme Court without exhausting remedies in lower courts went against the hierarchy of courts. The Supreme

Uploaded by

heinnah
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
393 views1 page

Latorre v. Latorre: Jurisdiction Dispute

Petitioner filed a case in the RTC of Muntinlupa City against her son and another individual regarding a parcel of land they co-owned that was leased and declared solely owned by the son. The RTC denied the respondent's motion to dismiss. However, the RTC later dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as it should have been filed in Makati City where the land was located. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that it could not examine the probative value of evidence or adjudicate the case on its merits, as that should be done by lower courts. It also held that direct filing to the Supreme Court without exhausting remedies in lower courts went against the hierarchy of courts. The Supreme

Uploaded by

heinnah
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

LATORRE V.

LATORRE
Facts: In October 2000, petitioner filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa City a
Complaint for Collection and Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale with
application for Injunction against her own son, herein respondent, and one Ifzal Ali.
Petitioner alleged that respondent leased a parcel of land that they co-owned to
Ifzal in Dasmarinas Village and that respondent declared that he is the sole owner of
the said parcel of land. Respondent immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
sole ground that the venue of the case was improperly laid. He stressed that while
the complaint was denominated as one for Collection and Declaration of Nullity of
Deed of Absolute Sale with application for Injunction, in truth the case was a real
action affecting title to and interest over the subject property. Since the subject
property is located in Makati City, respondent argued that petitioner should have
filed the case before the RTC of Makati City and not of Muntinlupa City. The RTC
denied the Motion to Dismiss of the respondent on January 2, 2001. However, on
April 28, 2008, the RTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction because the case
should have been filed in RTC Makati. Petitioner filed an MR which was denied.
Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, in
relation to Rule 41, of the Rules of Civil Procedure on alleged pure questions of law
directly filed to the SC is the proper remedy in the case at bar.

Held: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth
or falsity of the alleged facts. Petitioner prayed to the Supreme Court to decide the
case on the merits. To do so, however, would require the examination by this Court
of the probative value of the evidence presented, taking into account the fact that
the RTC failed to adjudicate this controversy on the merits. This, unfortunately, the
Supreme Court cannot do. It thus becomes exceedingly clear that the filing of the
case directly with the Supreme Court ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court
will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy sought cannot be obtained in
the lower tribunals. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and by
immemorial tradition.

You might also like