Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Parayno, Jr.

G.R. No. 163445 (2007)

FACTS:
R.A. 7227, known as Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992,
created the Subic Special Economic Zone and extended a number of economic or
tax incentives therein. However, exportation of goods from SSEZ shall be subject
to taxes and customs duties.
Pursuant to section 12(c) of RA 7227, Secretary of Finance Ocampo issued
a revenue regulation allocating 2% of the gross income earned by all businesses
and enterprises within Subic (SSEZ) and other Philippine Economic Zones.
CIR Parayno, Jr. issued Revenue Memorandum Circular setting the
Uniform Guidelines on the Taxation of Imported Motor Vehicles through the
Subic Free Port Zone and Other Freeport Zones.
Petitioners Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. (AIAI) and Subic Bay
Motors Corporation filed a complaint befor RTC Olongapo for the nullification of
the Revenue Memorandm Circular for being unconstitutional.
Respondents moved that the case be dismissed on the ground that the the
trial court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and exhaustion of
administrative remedies has not been complied with.
RTC Olongapo granted the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.
Respondents appealed to enjoin the RTC from exercising jurisdiction over the
case. CA ruled in favor of respondents.
Petitioners appealed before SC. They pointed out the fatal procedural
defects during appeal before CA because the appealed case was resolved before
the resolution of the issue in the RTC. Also, the respondents did not file a motion
for reconsideration before RTC prior to their appeal.
ISSUE:
I. Whether CA prematurely resolved the petition for certiorari?
II. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals is the proper court of jurisdiction?
RULING:
I
NO. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear,
try and decide a case. The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal. In fact, courts may take cognizance of the issue even
if not raised by the parties themselves. There is thus no reason to preclude the CA
from ruling on this issue even if allegedly, the same has not yet been resolved by
the trial court.
It is now settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is not always
sine qua non before availing of the remedy of certiorari. Hence, the general rule
of requiring a motion for reconsideration finds no application in a case where
what is precisely being assailed is lack of jurisdiction of the respondent court.
II
NO. RA 1125 provides for the jurisdiction of the CTA. They may only review
by appeal decisions of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments of internal
revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws or
part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Heirs of Santiago Nispeos v. Nisperos-Ducusin

G.R. No. 189570 (2013)
FACTS:
Santiago Nisperos owned an agricultural land in La Union. He declared
said property for taxation purposes. When Santiago died, his nine children
occupied, controlled and tilled the land. However, it was declared only under the
name of Maria for taxation purposes. Later, it was named after Maria and
Cipriana.
Meanwhile, Maria took Marissa Nisperos-Ducusin, a daughter of their
cousin Purita, as her ward and raised her like her own child.
Maria and Cipriana executed a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa in favor of
their siblings over the land. A Deed of Valuntary Land Transfer over the subject
property was executed in favor of Marissa, then 17 years old, as farmerbenificiary.
ISSUE:
Whether PARAB has jurisdiction to rule that the subject piece of land was
no longer covered by agrarian laws?
RULING:
No. The complaint should have been lodged with the Office of the DAR
Secretary and not with the DARAB. Sec. 1, Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of
Procedure provides for jurisdiction of DARAB over all agrarian disputes involving
the implementation of CARP. This includes issuance, correction, and cancellation
of CLOA. Moreover, there should be an agrarian dispute between the parties.
There must be a tenancy relationship between the parties for the DARAB to
have jurisdiction over a case. It is essential to establish all of the following
indispensable elements, to wit:
(1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
(2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
(3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
(4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production;
(5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee; and
(6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.
In the instant case, petitioners, as supposed owners of the subject property,
did not allege in their complaint that a tenancy relationship exists between them
and respondent. In fact, in their complaint, they described respondent as a
"ward" of one of the co-owners, Maria, who is "not a bona fide beneficiary, she
being not engaged in farming because she was still a minor" at the time the VLT
was executed.

Cojuangco, Jr. v. Republic

G.R. No. 180705 (2012)
FACTS:
In 1971, RA 6260 created the Coconut Investment Company (CIC) to
administer the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF).
When martial law was in effect, several presidential decrees were designed
to improve cocnut industry through the collection and use of the coconut levy
fund.
Through the years, a part of the cocnut funds went directly or indirectly to
financer various projects and was converted into various assets or investments.
One of which is the acquisition of the First United Bank which was later renamed
as United Cocnut Planters Bank (UCPB).
Prior to acquisition, UCPB was under the control of Pedro Cojuangco. The
plan was for PCA to buy all of Pedro's shares in UCPB. This did not ensue so it
remained a mere agreement.
The second contract was the Agreement for the Acquisition of a
Commercial Bank for the Benefit of the Coconut Farmers of the Philippines. In
the agreement, Cojuangco shall receive 10% of the shares fully paid shares.
Moreover, a part of the shares of PCA will be subscribed by Pedro.
In 1986, Pres. Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino sought the recovery of ill-gotten
wealth of Marcos, their close relatives, nominees and associates. Thus, the PCGG
was created.
The SC declared the coco levy funds as prima facie public funds. Thus,
since purchased UCPB shares were by such funds, ownership and voting rights
thereon pertains to the government.
ISSUE:
Did the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the case of ill-gotten wealth,
where the Republic seeks the declaration of nullity of the Cojuangco UCPB shares
acquired by virtue of the agreement, on the grounds of not being supported by
valuable consideration?
RULING:
Yes. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Subject
matter jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by the consent or acquiescence of any
or all of the parties. In turn, the issue on whether a suit comes within the
penumbra of a statutory conferment is determined by the allegations in the
complaint, regardless of whether or not the suitor will be entitled to recover upon
all or part of the claims asserted.

Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) v. Provincial

Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Pampanga
G.R. 155322-29 (2012)
FACTS:
On April 3, 1992, EO 80 authorized the establishment of the Clark
Development Corporation to act as an implementing arm of the BCDA regarding

management of the Clark Special Economic Zone (Clark) Proclamation 163 was
also issued to create and designatd the areas covered by the CSEZ.
Consequently, BCDA became the owner of these lands. However, some
parts of Clark were named after private individuals by virtue of Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA).
BCDA claims that the PARO cannot award those because they have already
been awarded to the