G.R. No. 192828 ; November 28, 2011
RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND LUCINA SANTOS, substituted by her son, EDUARDO S. BALAJADIA, Respondents.

FACTS

The respondents filed a Complaint (later amended) against the petitioners and others for “Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of Agreement and Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title with Prayer for [the] Issuance of [a] Temporary Restraining Order and [a] Writ of Preliminary Injunction,” docketed as Civil Case No. 02-105251. The respondents claimed to be heirs of the deceased Antonio Ching (also known as Lim San). They alleged that petitioner Ramon S. Ching, who they claimed was not Antonio’s biological son but an adopted child with a simulated birth certificate, murdered Antonio and was the prime suspect in a criminal case for murder. They sought to disinherit Ramon under Article 919 of the New Civil Code. The Complaint further alleged that Ramon fraudulently inventoried and transferred Antonio’s properties to his own name, including real estate and shares in Po Wing Properties, Inc.; unduly influenced some respondents into executing an Agreement and Waiver which he did not comply with; executed an Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement adjudicating the entire estate to himself; and sold estate properties to third parties. The Amended Complaint added a cause of action regarding a Certificate of Premium Plus Acquisition (CPPA) deposit and prayed for its release to the respondents. The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because the action for the release of the CPPA deposit was essentially a summary action for the settlement of a money claim against a bank, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the liquidation court (Regional Trial Court sitting as a commercial court) pursuant to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act). The Regional Trial Court (Branch 6, Manila) denied the motion to dismiss in its Orders dated March 15, 2007 and May 16, 2007. The Court of Appeals affirmed these orders. Petitioners elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court (Branch 6, Manila) has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, particularly over the seventh cause of action in the Amended Complaint which seeks the release of a Certificate of Premium Plus Acquisition (CPPA) deposit, considering the provisions of Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act).

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 6) has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
The Court held that the petitioners’ reliance on Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653 was misplaced. The provision applies to claims against a bank ordered closed by the Monetary Board and placed under liquidation. In this case, there was no allegation or proof that Global Business Bank, Inc. (or its successor Metrobank) had been ordered closed and placed under liquidation. Metrobank’s manifestation of willingness to abide by any court order regarding the deposit negated the existence of any liquidation proceeding. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction of the liquidation court was not triggered.
The Court further ruled that the petitioners were estopped from questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction. They had actively participated in the proceedings by filing motions, answers, counterclaims, and participating in pre-trial over a significant period before raising the jurisdictional challenge via their second Motion to Dismiss. Such conduct constituted voluntary submission to the court’s authority.
Moreover, the Court found that the respondents’ Amended Complaint was not a simple action for the recovery of a bank deposit. It was a complex action seeking multiple reliefs centered on the settlement of Antonio Ching’s estate and the recovery of properties allegedly fraudulently transferred by Ramon Ching, with the CPPA being just one item among many properties in dispute. The primary objective was the settlement of the estate and the declaration of rights among heirs, which is within the general jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.