Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tacay vs. Tagum G.R. Nos. 88075-77

Tacay vs. Tagum G.R. Nos. 88075-77

Ratings: (0)|Views: 51|Likes:
Published by Marianne Andres

More info:

Published by: Marianne Andres on Aug 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
MAXIMO TACAY, PONCIANO PANES and ANTONIA NOEL,
petitioners, vs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM Davao del Norte, Branches 1 and 2, Presidedby Hon. Marcial Fernandez and Hon. Jesus Matas, respectively, PATSITA GAMUTAN,Clerk of Court, and GODOFREDO PINEDA,
respondents.
G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20, 1989FACTS:
These were two separate cases originally filed by Godofredo Pineda at the RTCof Tagum for recovery of possession (
accion publiciana 
) against three defendants,namely Antonio Noel, Ponciano Panes, and Maximo Tacay. Pineda was the owner of 790sq. meter land evidence by TCT No. T-56560. The previous owner of such land allowedthe three defendants to use or occupy the same by mere tolerance. Pineda havinghimself the need to use the property, demanded the defendants to vacate the premisesand pay reasonable rental therefore, but such demands were refused. The complaint waschallenged in the Motions to Dismiss filed by each defendant alleging that it did notspecify the amounts of actual, nominal and exemplary damages, nor the assessed value
of the property, that being a ground to bar the determination of the RTC’s jurisdiction
in deciding the case. The Motions to Dismiss were denied and the claims for damagesin the complaint were expunged for failure to specify the amounts. Thus, the defendantsfiled a Joint Petition for
certiorari 
, mandamus and prohibition, as well as a temporaryrestraining order against the RTC.
 ISSUE: WON THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES CLAIMED AND THE ASSESSED VALUE OFTHE PROPERTY
ARE RELEVANT IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT’S
JURISDICTION IN A CASE FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY.
HELD:
Yes.
Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages aswell, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the propertyand (b) the total amount of related damages sought. The Court acquires jurisdictionover the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, asof the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court maygrant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime. But where-as in the case

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->