Case Name Vazquez vs.

De Borja
Topic Jurisdiction
Case No. |
(G.R. No. L-48930, February 23, 1944
Date
Ponente OZAETA, J.:
Doctrine Courts have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue.
Link https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1944/feb1944/gr_l-48930_1944.html

RELEVANT FACTS:
RELEVANT FACTS
 Francisco de Borja (de Borja for brevity), petitioner, filed three separate
complaints against Antonio Vasquez (Vasquez) and Fernando Busuego, to
recover from them jointly and severally the total sum of P4,702.70 upon three
alleged causes of action, pertaining to three different dates where defendants
allegedly jointly and severally obligated themselves to sell to the plaintiff cavans
of palay, to wit:
 January 1932: 4,000 cavans of palay at P2.10 per cavan to be delivered on
February 1932 for which they received P8,400 from de Borja. However, they
only delivered 2,488 cavans of the value of P5,224.80 on the months of
February, March and April and refused to deliver the balance the value of
P3,175.20 despite repeated demands.
 Defendants refusal to deliver the abovementioned resulted to the plaintiff
suffering P1,000 in damages.
 On account of the aforementioned agreement, the defendants delivered
4,000 empty sacks, on which account de Borja suffered damaged in the
sum of P150.

 Vasquez denied entering into a contract to deliver palay in his personal capacity,
either solely or together with his co-defendant Busuego and that the agreement for
the purchase of the cavans of palay and the payment price were made by the
plaintiff with and to the Natividad-Vasquez Sabani Dev’t Co., Inc. - a corporation.
Vasquez alleged he suffered damages in the sum of P1,000 on account of the filing
of the action, by way of counterclaim.
 Trial court ordered Vazquez to pay de Borja with legal interest and absolved
Busuego from the complaint and the plaintiff de Borja from defendant Vazquez’
counterclaim.
 The CA modified the judgment of the CFI by reducing the total sum collectable.
 Defendant Vzaquez filed a Motion for Reconsideration and the CA set aside its
judgment and remanded the case to the CFI for further proceedings.
 Vazquez, not satisfied with the result, filed a petition for certiorari to review and
reverse the judgment of the CA.
 De Borja filed a cross-petition for certiorari to maintain the original judgment of the
CA.
 ISSUE: Whether the court has jurisdiction to decide on issues not alleged.
RULING: No, the courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not
in issue.

“No such cause of action was alleged in the complaint or tried by express or implied
consent of the parties by virtue of section 4 of Rule 17. Hence the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the issue and could not adjudicate upon it (Reyes vs. Diaz, G.R. No.
48754.) Consequently it was error for the Court of Appeals to remand the case to the
trial court to try and decide such issue.”

RULING
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the complaint is hereby
dismissed, without any finding as to costs.

SEPARATE OPINIONS
(optional)

NOTES
G.R. No. 194270 December 3, 2012
LORETO BOTE, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ROBERT VELOSO and GLORIA VELOSO, Respondents.

( It affirms that "courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in
issue." Thus, a judgment that goes beyond the issues and purports to adjudicate
something on which the court did not hear the parties, is not only irregular but also
extrajudicial and invalid. The rule rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play. )