DINA TUZON V. THE HON.

CESAR CRUZ
G.R. NO. L-27410, AUGUST 28, 1975
AQUINO, J.:

FACTS
Dina Tuzon, petitioner, was accused of perpetrating estafa to Lyric Piano Center
Co. which was allegedly commited in Quezon City and the payment made in
Mandaluyong, Rizal. Respondent, Judge of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong,
Rizal conducted a preliminary investigation against the petitioner involving the
amount of payment, P1,900. The complaint and supporting affidavit were sworn
before the respondent judge, citing the respondent judge as one of the witnesses.
Petitioner moved to quash the complaint on the grounds that: the municipal court
lacks jurisdiction; and the respondent judge was cited as a witness to the case.
Respondent judge denied the motion; thus, petitioner filed petition for certiorari and
prohibition to annul the denial.

ISSUE
Does the petition of Dina Tuzon for certiorari and prohibition to annul the denial to
nullify the complaint be granted?

RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition without prejudice. The municipal court
have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of cases committed within
their territorial jurisdiction; hence the denied petition. In addition, the case appears
to be transitory of continuing offense which means it can be filed in any jurisdiction
part of offense was committed. With regard to the petition for certiorari, it does not
lie to review an order denying a motion. However, considering that the respondent
judge was cited as a witness, the respondent judge could not have displayed the
neutrality and impartial judge. A new preliminary investigation to be conducted by
another judge was ordered.
 SPOUSES EDUARDO AND ELSA VERSOLA V. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
AND DR. VICTORIA T. ONG, OH
G.R. NO. 164740, JULY 31, 2006
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS
Petitioners, Spouses Eduardo and Elsa Versola brought a house and lot and paid
in partial to a Dolores Ledesma who owes to private respondent, Dr. Victoria T.
Ong, wherein the said loan was then transferred to the petitioners and had
remained unpaid. The private respondent filed a case and was ordered to be paid
upon by the petitioners. After due time, the property in the name of petitioner was
levied. On 18 September 2000, petitioner filed an Objection/Exception to auction
to Family home pending court clearance but despite the objection, the sheriff still
sold the property to the private respondent at public auction on 19 September
2000. On 5 August 2002, private respondent filed an Ex-parte motion for the
Judicial Sale of Real Property of the petitioners, which was opposed by the
petitioners on the grounds of the property being a family home and serious defects
in the conduct of execution of sale. The trial court dismissed the petitioners
arguments and granted private respondent Ex-parte motion and confirmed the
Sheriffs Final Deed of sale. After denial of Motion for reconsideration, the petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari before Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court judge, which was dismissed alike to their
Motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE
Does the petitioners petition to consider the provision of Family Code to their
property be granted?

RULING
No. The Court of Appeals denied. The court criticized the petitioners claim that the
property is a family home for the reason that it was never substantiated aside from
their effort to assert defense only after two years. In addition, the petitioner would
not have petition claim if not for the Ex-parte motion of the private respondent. The
issue was still whether the petitioner had timely raised and proved their claim to be
subject to exemption.