Jurisdiction over Crimes Punishable Only by a Fine - Prof. Manuel Riguera

Source - https://legisperit.com/2022/08/17/jurisdiction-over-crimes-punishable-only-by-a-fine/


"Jurisdiction over Crimes Punishable Only by a Fine

Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 09-94 (14 June 1994) provides that it is the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MTCs) which have jurisdiction over crimes punishable only by a fine, where such fine does not exceed ₱4,000.

It is axiomatic that the Supreme Court does not have the power to lay down rules regarding subject-matter jurisdiction. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 was thus anchored on the original provision of Section 32(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 (prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 7691) which provides that the MTCs shall have jurisdiction over crimes punishable only by a fine not exceeding ₱4,000. Hence, a crime punishable only by a fine exceeding ₱4,000 is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

However, the Rules on Expedited Procedure in the First Level Courts (effective 11 April 2022) provide that “[a]ll … criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is … a fine not exceeding Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00)” shall be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure (Section 1[B][5]). The Rule on Summary Procedure of course applies exclusively to cases before the MTCs. In effect, the REPFLC increased the jurisdictional amount provided for in Administrative Circular No. 09-94 from ₱4,000 to ₱50,000. Hence, from the text of the REPFLC, a crime punishable only by a fine exceeding ₱4,000 but not ₱50,000 would fall within the MTC’s jurisdiction.

It is submitted however with due respect that the REPFLC cannot effectively increase the jurisdictional amount to ₱50,000. Unlike SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 which was anchored on B.P. Blg. 129, Section 1(B)(5) of the REPFLC is bereft of statutory mooring. A legislative amendment of Section 32(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 would be required to increase the jurisdictional amount for offenses punishable by fine only. It is thus opined that the RTCs retain jurisdiction over offenses punishable only by a fine exceeding ₱4,000.

In line with the foregoing observations, it is also submitted that Section 1(B)(5) of the REPFLC be amended as follows:

“All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding one (1) year or where the prescribed penalty consists only of a fine not exceeding Four Thousand Pesos (₱4,000.00). In offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱150,000.00).”"

RA 11057 - Personal Property Security Act (2018)

R.A. No. 11057, approved in 2018, is known as the "PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT".

It applies to all transactions of any form that SECURE AN OBLIGATION with MOVABLE COLLATERAL, EXCEPT interests in AIRCRAFTS subject to Republic Act No. 9497, or the "Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008", and interests in SHIPS subject to Presidential Decree No. 1521, or the "Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978. (Section 4).

Please note SECTION 68 of the law, which provides that notwithstanding the entry into force of the Act under Section 67, the IMPLEMENTATION thereof shall be CONDITIONED UPON THE REGISTRY BEING ESTABLISHED AND OPERATIONAL UNDER SECTION 26.

NOTABLE PROVISIONS:

SECTION 26. ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTRONIC REGISTRY.—

(a) The Registry shall be established in and administered by the LRA.

(b) The Registry shall provide electronic means for registration and searching of notices.

Section 27. PUBLIC RECORD .—

(a) Information contained in a registered notice shall be considered as a public record.

(b) Any person may search notices registered in the Registry.

(c) The electronic records of the Registry shall be the official records.

SECTION 62. IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS. — Within six (6) months from the passage of this Act, the DOF in coordination with the Department of Justice, through the LRA, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for’ the effective implementation of this Act.

SECTION 63. RULES ON ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE.— Subject to Section 47, the expedited hearing/proceedings shall be conducted in a SUMMARY MANNER consistent with the declared policies of this Act and in accordance with the rules of procedure that the SUPREME COURT may promulgate.

SECTION 66. REPEALING CLAUSE .— The following laws, and all laws, decrees, orders, and issuances or portions thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly:

(a) Sections 1 to 16 of Act No. 1508, otherwise known as "THE CHATTEL MORTGAGE LAW";

(b) Articles 2085-2123, 2127, 2140-2141, 2241, 2243, and 2246-2247 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the "CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES";

(c) Section 13 of Republic Act No. 5980, as amended by Republic Act No. 8556, otherwise known as the "FINANCING COMPANY ACT OF 1998";

(d) Sections 114-116 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the "PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE";

(e) Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, insofar as the provision thereof is inconsistent with this Act; and

(f) Section 5(e) of Republic Act No. 4136, otherwise known as the "LAND TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CODE".

SECTION 68. IMPLEMENTATION .— Notwithstanding the entry into force of this Act under Section 67, the IMPLEMENTATION of the Act shall be CONDITIONED UPON THE REGISTRY BEING ESTABLISHED AND OPERATIONAL UNDER SECTION 26.

Read -

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2019/10/10/implementing-rules-and-regulations-of-republic-act-no-11057/

https://www.dof.gov.ph/advocacies/personal-property-security-act/

http://www.investphilippines.info/arangkada/ra-11057-personal-property-security-act/

Issuance of title to subdivision lot buyer or condominium unit buyer upon full payment of the price - PD No. 957

"FEPI is liable under Sections 17
and 25 of PD 957.

We now tackle Sections 17 and 25 of PD 957, viz.:

Section 17. Registration. All contracts to sell, deeds of sale and other similar instruments relative to the sale or conveyance of the subdivision lots and condominium units, whether or not the purchase price is paid in full, shall be registered by the seller in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the property is situated.

x x x x

Section 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. (Emphases supplied)

The registration of the final deed of sale here is the obligation of FEPI under Section 17. On the other hand, issuance of title under Section 25 should be construed to mean delivery by FEPI of the owner's duplicate copy of the CCT, again for purposes of causing the registration of the property in the buyer's name.

As it was, FEPI violated both provisions of law. Not only did it fail to register the deed of absolute sale before the Register of Deeds, it also refused to deliver to HRI the owner's duplicate copy of the CCT.

Notably, FEPI's obligations to register the final deed of sale (Section 17) and deliver the owner's duplicate copy of the CCT (Section 25) are distinct from the obligation of HRI, as buyer, to legally process the transfer of the CCT in its name as the now registered owner."


G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html

Owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title

"Presentation of the owner's
duplicate certificate of title and
proof of payment of taxes and fees
are conditions sine qua non to the
transfer of title before the Register
of Deeds

Under Section 135 of the LGC, proof of payment of taxes and fees is a requirement before the Register of Deeds may initiate the transfer of title over a property, viz.:

SECTION 135. Tax on Transfer of Real Property Ownership. -

x x x x

(b) For this purpose, the Register of Deeds of the province concerned shall, before registering any deed, require the presentation of the evidence of payment of this tax. The provincial assessor shall likewise make the same requirement before canceling an old tax declaration and issuing a new one in place thereof. Notaries public shall furnish the provincial treasures with a copy of any deed transferring ownership or title to any real property within thirty (30) days from the date of notarization. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, HRI recognizes its obligation to pay the taxes and registration expenses as buyer of the condominium unit pursuant to paragraph 4 (b) of the Contract to Sell.23 It also does not dispute the common fact that it needs to pay the relevant taxes and fees for registration of a new title under its name. The only thing HRI demands from FEPI, which the latter has persistently refused to deliver, is copy of the owner's duplicate certificate of title on the premise that HRI must first present proof that it had already paid the required taxes and fees.

FEPI is mistaken.

Section 41 Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the "Property Registration Decree," provides:

Section 41. Owner's duplicate certificate of title. The owner's duplicate certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly authorized representative. If two or more persons are registered owners, one owner's duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole land, or if the co-owners so desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to each of them in like form, but all outstanding certificates of title so issued shall be surrendered whenever the Register of Deeds shall register any subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or part thereof or any interest therein. The Register of Deeds shall note on each certificate of title a statement as to whom a copy thereof was issued.

Section 53 of the same law expounds:

Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.

The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.

x x x x

Thus, it is clear that for purposes of registration of any voluntary transactions before the Register of Deeds and the subsequent issuance of a new certificate of title,24 the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title must be surrendered by the parties to the Register of Deeds.

To emphasize, upon HRI's full payment of the purchase price, not only has it acquired the right to a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale but the right as well to the owner's duplicate CCT. For without these documents, HRI may not possibly cause the registration of a new title under its name."


G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html

Deed of Sale

"HRI may demand as a matter of
right a notarized Deed of Absolute
Sale in its favor.

While FEPI did execute a Deed of Absolute Sale upon HRI's full payment of the purchase price, the same was undated and unnotarized. FEPI asserts that the document will stay that way until HRI remits the corresponding payment for the DST and other taxes on the sale.

Article 1358 of the Civil Code reads:

Article 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein are governed by articles 1403, No. 2, and1405;

x x x x

In Cenido v. Spouses Apacionado,21 the Court ruled that contrary to petitioner's claim, the "Pagpapatunay" is a valid contract of sale despite being unnotarized since under Article 1358, a private document, though not reduced to a public one, remains to be valid and is merely unenforceable. So that after the existence of the contract has been admitted, a party to the sale, if he or she is so minded, has the right to compel the other party to execute the proper document following Article 135722 of the Civil Code.

Section 135 of the Local Government Code (LGC) further speaks of the requirements for registration of deeds on transfer of real property and the corresponding duty of notaries public who notarized the deeds, thus:

SECTION 135. Tax on Transfer of Real Property Ownership. -

a. x x x

b. For this purpose, the Register of Deeds of the province concerned shall, before registering any deed, require the presentation of the evidence of payment of this tax. The provincial assessor shall likewise make the same requirement before canceling an old tax declaration and issuing a new one in place thereof. Notaries public shall furnish the provincial treasures with a copy of any deed transferring ownership or title to any real property within thirty (30) days from the date of notarization. (Emphasis supplied)

On the strength of Article 1357 of the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, in relation to Section 135 of the LGC, therefore, HRI has the right to compel FEPI to execute a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale in its favor for purposes of registration."


G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html

Contract to sell

"Upon full payment of the contract
price, HRI became rightfully
entitled to the execution of a Deed
of Absolute Sale in its favor.

A contract to sell has been defined as "a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds itself to sell the property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price." In a contract to sell, "ownership is retained by the seller and is not to pass until the full payment of the price."20 Consequently, once the buyer has paid the purchase price in full, the contract to sell is converted to an absolute sale and the buyer has the right to demand the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in its favor.

Here, there is no question that HRI has paid in full the contract price in the amount of ₱20,998,400.00. There is no question either that by operation of law, HRI as the buyer has become rightfully entitled to the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in its favor."

G.R. No. 231936, November 25, 2020
FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HERMANA REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_231936_2020.html