Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Tinitigan Vs Tinitigan

    Uploaded by

    Bia
    Payuran leased a factory building and land to a company without the consent of her husband Tinitigan Sr. Tinitigan Sr. filed a complaint in court to annul the lease. The court enjoined Payuran from disposing of the property. Tinitigan Sr. sought to sell a rented house and lot, which the court approved. Payuran appealed but lost. She then filed for legal separation. The court ruled it had jurisdiction over the property due to the original complaint, and the legal separation filing was an attempt to frustrate the court's order.

    Copyright:

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

    Tinitigan Vs Tinitigan

    Uploaded by

    Bia
    182 views2 pages
    Payuran leased a factory building and land to a company without the consent of her husband Tinitigan Sr. Tinitigan Sr. filed a complaint in court to annul the lease. The court enjoined Payuran from disposing of the property. Tinitigan Sr. sought to sell a rented house and lot, which the court approved. Payuran appealed but lost. She then filed for legal separation. The court ruled it had jurisdiction over the property due to the original complaint, and the legal separation filing was an attempt to frustrate the court's order.

    Original Description:

    PFR

    Original Title

    Tinitigan vs Tinitigan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Payuran leased a factory building and land to a company without the consent of her husband Tinitigan Sr. Tinitigan Sr. filed a complaint in court to annul the lease. The court enjoined Payuran from disposing of the property. Tinitigan Sr. sought to sell a rented house and lot, which the court approved. Payuran appealed but lost. She then filed for legal separation. The court ruled it had jurisdiction over the property due to the original complaint, and the legal separation filing was an attempt to frustrate the court's order.

    Copyright:

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

    Tinitigan Vs Tinitigan

    Uploaded by

    Bia
    Payuran leased a factory building and land to a company without the consent of her husband Tinitigan Sr. Tinitigan Sr. filed a complaint in court to annul the lease. The court enjoined Payuran from disposing of the property. Tinitigan Sr. sought to sell a rented house and lot, which the court approved. Payuran appealed but lost. She then filed for legal separation. The court ruled it had jurisdiction over the property due to the original complaint, and the legal separation filing was an attempt to frustrate the court's order.

    Copyright:

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

    SCARLET… RAWR!

    stay updated via rss

    Tinitigan vs. Tinitigan

    Posted: November 10, 2011 in Case Digest


    Tags: Civpro
    0
    Facts: Payuran and her 3 children leased to United Elec Corp a factory building with the land.
    The consent of Tinitigan Sr. (husband of Payuran) was not secured. Consequently he filed a
    complaint for Annulment of Ownership & Contract of Lease at CFI Rizal. The complaint was
    later amended to include “restrain defendants from encumbering or disposing property in the
    name of Molave Development Corp & those in their name as husband and wife. Te court
    enjoined Payuran from doing any act to dispose the property. The case was then set for hearing
    primarily on the the issue of preliminary injunction. The contract of lease was settled amicably.
    However Tinitigan Sr. sought judicial approval of sale of 2 rented house and lot which are
    conjugal which was tenanted by Quintin Lim. The court granted. An MR was filed by Payuran
    because allegedly the Loring property is suitable for condo site therefore command a higher
    price. Two days thereafter, Payuran filed a legal separation case at CFI Pasay. The parties
    agreed to the continuation of the administration of the conjugal property by Payuran subject to
    certain conditions, one of which the Loring property shall be subject to the decision of CFI
    Rizal. Meanwhile Judge of CFI Rizal denied petitioners MR for lack of merit. They appealed
    but was denied on the ground that the order appealed from is merely interlocutory. Payuran
    and children then filed a petition for certiorari at the CA which affirmed the same, hence this
    petition.

    Issue: Whether or not the court where respondent Judge (judge of CFI Rizal) sits did not
    acquire jurisdiction over the Loring property hence cannot grant authority to sell.

    Held: CFI Rizal did acquire jurisdiction over the Loring property. The amended complaint
    prayed among others to restrain defendant from encumbering or disposing of the property.
    This in effect brings the Loring property under the jurisdiction of the court (CFI Rizal).
    Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. It is determined by the allegations of

    https://scarletyarn.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/tinitigan-vs-tinitigan/ 22/10/2019, 6>57 PM


    Page 1 of 2
    the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some
    of the claims asserted therein. It cannot be made dependent upon the defenses. The Filing of
    the legal separation case after the order of denial is a tactical maneuver to frustrate the order.
    The administration of property is given to Payuran but such is not absolute. It was subject to a
    condition. The CFI Pasay even recognized the jurisdiction primarily acquired by CFI Rizal.
    Jurisdiction once acquired continue until the case is finally terminated.

    Advertisements

    REPORT THIS AD

    REPORT THIS AD

    Blog at WordPress.com.

    https://scarletyarn.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/tinitigan-vs-tinitigan/ 22/10/2019, 6>57 PM


    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like