MANUEL P. PARCON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NICOLAS SIAN MONTE­BLANCO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH XXXI, RTC, ILOILO, JESSIE E. BILLENA, ALFRE…

The sole issue presented for resolution in this case is whether
or not the RTC of Iloilo can continue to exercise jurisdiction over an action
for the annulment of the decision of the then CFI (now RTC) of Manila after the
plaintiff therein (herein petitioner) had amended the complaint at a time when
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129
was already in effect.

On November 9, 1982, the petitioner filed a complaint with the
respondent RTC of Iloilo Branch XXXI docketed as Civil Case No. 14708 for the
annulment of the decision dated October 28, 1980 of the then CFI of Manila,
Branch XXX in Civil Case No. 116500.  The
defendants named were Producers Bank of the Philippines, the City Sheriff of
Manila and the Branch Sheriff of the CFI of Manila, Branch XXX.

On September 11, 1984, the petitioner filed an amended complaint impleading Jessie R. Billena, and
Alfredo T. Javellana, herein private respondents,
together with the Intestate Estate of Federico Salvador and Gregorio Hechanova, as additional defendants.  The RTC of Iloilo subsequently dismissed the
amended complaint as against the said estate in view of the commencement of
administration proceedings therefor.

Meanwhile, on March 2, 1987, private respondents filed a motion
to dismiss anchored on the ground that the RTC of Iloilo no longer has
jurisdiction over the case since at the time the amended complaint was filed,
jurisdiction over actions for the annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Courts is already vested with the Court of Appeals under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.  The RTC of Iloilo denied the motion to
dismiss.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision,^[1]
the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment:

“1)  declaring as null
and void the Order of respondent judge dated December 28, 1987;

“2)  declaring that
Civil Case No. 14708 pending before respondent judge be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction and that the plaintiff in said case be advised to bring the
complaint to the proper tribunal in accordance with Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129.” (p. 46, Rollo)

Hence the instant petition.

Batas Pambansa Bilang
129, which took effect on January 18, 1983, divested the CFI (now RTC) of its
jurisdiction to hear and decide actions for the annulment of judgments of
Regional Trial Courts, the same being now within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeals.

We are in complete agreement with the observations and
conclusions of the Court of Appeals that:

“From the records, We find that the original complaint was
filed before the enactment of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.  However,
the complaint was amended by impleading the
petitioners after said law have taken effect. 
When a pleading is amended which introduces a new cause of action or
includes additional defendants, the original pleading is deemed abandoned and
the case now stands for trial on the amended complaint only.  (See Insular Veneer, Inc. v. Plan, 73 SCRA
9).  Considering that the amended
complaint was filed after the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the case falls
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (formerly
Intermediate Appellate Court).

“Section 9, paragraph 2 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129 provides, among others:

‘Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. – The Intermediate Appellate Court
shall exercise:

xxx                                           xxx

‘(2)         Exclusive
original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Court:

xxx                                           xxx

“Section 44 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides as follows:

‘The provisions of this Act shall be immediately carried out in
accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President.  The Court of Appeals, the Courts of First
Instance, the Circuit Criminal Courts, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Courts, the Courts of Agrarian Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal
Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Courts, shall continue to function as
presently constituted and organized, until the completion of the reorganization
provided in this Act as declared by the President.  Upon such declaration, the said courts shall
be deemed automatically abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to
hold office.  The cases pending
in the old Courts shall be transferred
to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuant
to this Act, together with the pertinent functions,
records, equipment, property and the necessary personnel.” (Emphasis
supplied)

“xxx                           xxx                               xxx.”

(pp. 2-3, Decision)

Exclusive original jurisdiction having been conferred on the
Court of Appeals, the RTC of Iloilo cannot continue exercising jurisdiction
over Civil Case No 14708.  Exclusive
jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction
possessed to the exclusion of others.  (Ong v. Parel, 156 SCRA 768)

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision
of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. and concurred in by Associate
Justices Ricardo J. Francisco and Alfredo L. Benipayo.