G.R. No.

L-4l430 February 19, 1979

ANGEL BAUTISTA, petitioner,
vs.
MATILE LIM !or a"# $" be%al! o! &%e I"&e'&a&e E'&a&e o! (e#ro L$ra, a"# )o". M*ISES F. ALISA+,
(re'$#$", -u#,e o! &%e .our& o! F$r'& $"'&a"/e o! La"ao #el Nor&e, Bra"/% 0, respondents.
A1UIN*, J.:
On June 19,1974 Matilde Sales Lim, as administratix of the estate of her late husband, Pedro Lim led a !omplaint
a"ainst #n"el $autista in the %ourt of &irst 'nstan!e of Lanao del (orte, 'li"an %it) $ran!h '*. 'n that !omplaint she
pra)ed for res!ission of the !ontra!t exe!uted on September +,, 197+ bet-een $autista and Pedro Lain -hereb)
$autista of land of Pedro Lim lo!ated in 'li"an %it).
She also pra)ed that the deed of sales -ith assumption Of mort"a"e exe!uted on &ebruar) ., 197/ bet-een $autista,
as vendee, and the Lim spouses, as vendors be d void 0%ivil %ase (o. +4. or '*1+71 and later *11442. #nd she as3ed for
the re!onve)an!e of a par!el of land -ith an area of t-ent) he!tares -hi!h -as !titiousl) sold to $autista but -hi!h,
-ith abuse of trust, he !aused to be re"istered in his name.
#s do!3etin" fee for that !omplaint she paid thirt)1t-o pesos 0/+2 onl). 4hat is the do!3et fee in !ase the value of the
propert) in liti"ation is more than P.55 but less than P/,555 or -hen the !ase does not !on!ern propert) but is one for
naturali6atoin, adoption, le"al petition, et!. 7Se!. 80/2 and 0112, 9ule 141, 9ules of %ourt2.
$e!ause Matilde Lim had alle"ed in para"raph 14 of her !omplaint that the value of the t-ent)1he!tare lot 0one of the
several lots 9 involved in the !ase2 -as ve million pesos, Jud"e :duardo %. 4utaan ordered her to pa) -ithin a -ee3
from noti!e the sum of P9,,1, as de!ien!) do!3et fee.
Sin!e she !ould not pa) the de!ien!) do!3et fee, it -as !onstituted 0upon Jud"e 4utaan; , order2 as a rst lien of the
<overnment on the properties in liti"ation !overed b) Ori"inal %erti!ates of 4itle (os. 9P1+1, 9P1, and 4ransfer
%erti!ate of 4itle (o. 41159/7 0a.f.2. 4hat third title !overs the t-ent) he!tare lot re"istered in $autista;s name.
#fter $autista dis!overed that the de!ien!) do!3et fee had be!ome a lion on that liti"ated t-ent)1he!tare lot, he led
a motion pra)in" that the !omplaint of Matilde Lim a"ainst him be dismissed for non1pa)ment of the do!3et fee.
Jud"e Moises &. =alisa) in his order of Jul) ,, 1978 modied Jud"e 4utaan;s order b) treatin" the !ase as one for
res!ission or annulment of !ontra!t, or a !ase -hose value !annot be estimated>, and for -hi!h the lin" fee is t-o
hundred pesos. ?e dire!ted that Matilde Lim should pa) @1., as the balan!e of the do!3et fee. She paid that
de!ien!) on Jul) 17,1978.
On September 1,, 1978, $autista led in this %ourt a petition for mandamus, !ertiorari and prohibition. ?e pra)ed for
the annulment of Jud"e 4utaan;s order !onstitutin" the de!ien!) do!3et fee of P9,,1, as a lien on the lots involved in
%ivil %ase (o. +4. and of Jud"e =alisa);s order allo- Matilde Lim to pa) P1., onl) as de!ien!) do!3et fee.
$autista;s theor) is that be!ause Matilde Lim did not pa) the de!ien!) do!3et fee of P9,,1,, the lo-er !ourt did not
a!Auire Burisdi!tion over %ivil %ase (o. +4., and, therefore, the !ase should be dismissed.
#fter this in!ident -as submitted for de!ision, or on Januar) /, 1979, the parties submitted to this %ourt a !ompromise
a"reement of the main case pendin" in the lo-er !ourt. 4he) as3ed that the !ompromise be approved as the basis of a
Bud"ment, not in this !ase but in the main !ase. (o mention -as made in the !ompromise of -hat disposition should
be made of this in!ident. 4he !ompromise readsC
%OMP9OM'S: #<9::M:(4
%OM:S no- parties, represented b) their respe!tive !ounsels unto this ?onorable %ourt, most
respe!tfull) submit the follo-in" %ompromise #"reement, to -itC
1. 4hat plaintiD 2 and defendant 22 have a"reed to settle and terminate this !ase ami!abl) and the)
forever -aive or renoun!e all !laims and !ounter!laims a"ainst ea!h other in !onne!tion -ith the
properties subBe!t of this !ase or the transa!tions mentioned in the !omplaint under the follo-in"
terms and !onditionsC
0a2 E PlaintiD 2 shall be allo-ed b) defendant 22 to harvest the !o!onut planted on the
land !overed b) 4%4 (o. 159/7 0a.f.2. of the 9e"ister of =eeds of 'li"an %it), in the
name of #n"el L. $autista situated at 4ominobo, 'li"an %it), !ontainin" an area of +5
he!tares, more or less.
0b2 E 'n the event, ho-ever, that plaintiD 2 dies or the propert) is a!tuall) developed
-hi!hever !omes rst, defendant shall pa) the plaintiD or the heirs the sum of 4?'94F
4?OGS#(= P:SOS 0P/5,555.552.
0!2 E =efendant 22 "uarantees the plaintiD 2 the ri"ht to harvest the !o!onut on the
land mentioned above -ithin a period of one 012 )ear from date of this %ompromise
#"reement but she shall be allo-ed to harvest and enBo) the produ!e as lon" as she
lives if the above des!ribed propert) is not sold or a!tuall) developed b) the
defendant. 22
0d2 E 4hat the sum of P15,555.55 shall be paid b) defendant 22 to plaintiD;sH !ounsel
as attorne);s fee -ith plaintiD 2 upon si"nin" of this %ompromise #"reement.
PlaintiD 2 bind and obli"ate herself to si"n an) and all do!uments that -ill be reAuired b)
defendant22 to !lear the titles from an) annotations or ins!riptions made at her instan!e.
I?:9:&O9:, premises !onsidered, it is respe!tfull) pra)ed that the fore"oin" %ompromise #"reement
be approved and made the basis of a Jud"ment.
'li"an %it), Philippines, =e!ember +5, 197,.
0S<=2 M#4'L=: L'M 0S<=.2 #(<:L L. $#G4'S4#
PlaintiD =efendant
0S<=.2 :='L$:94O #. (O:L 0S<=.2 '9:(: =. JG9#=O
%ounsel for PlaintiD %ounsel for =efendant
4he issues are -hether the do!3et fee for %ivil %ase (o. +4., no- *1144 0'*1+712, should be re"arded as full) paid and
-hether the !ompromise ma) be approved b) this %ourt.
Ie hold that Jud"e =alisa) did not err in !onsiderin" %ivil %ase (o. *1144 as basi!all) one for res!ission or annulment
of !ontra!t -hi!h is not sus!eptible of pe!uniar) estimation 01 Moran;s %omments on the 9ules of %ourt, 1975 :d. p.
88J Lapitan vs. S!andia 'n!., L1+4..,, Jul) /1, 19.,, +4 S%9# 479,4,/2.
%onseAuentl), the fee for do!3etin" it is P+55, an amount alread) paid b) plaintiD, no- respondent Matilde Lim 0She
should pa) also the t-o pesos fee, d she has not paid it, as reAuired in Se!tion 4 of 9epubli! #!t (o. /,75, the of the
G.P. La- %enter.2
4he rulin" that the date of the pa)ment of the do!3et fee is the real date of the lin" of the !ase Malimit vs. =e"amo,
1+5 Phil 1+472 has no appli!ation to this !ase be!ause here an initial do!3et fee of P/+ -as paid. 4he same
observation applies to the rulin" in <ar!ia v. *asAue6, L1+.,5,, Mar!h +,, 19.9, +7 S%9# 858, -here no do!3et fee
-as paid -hen the petition for the probate of a -ill -as led.
Petitioner $autista;s !ontention that the do!3et fee should be based on P8,555,555, the alle"ed market value of the
t-ent)1he!tare land alread) mention is manifestl) !ontrar) to the provision of Se!tion 8, 9ule 141 that if the !ase
!on!erns me estate, the assessed value thereof shall be !onsidered in !omputin" the fees>. 4he assessed value of the
lands involved in %ivil %ase (o. *1144 appears to be P+4,555, more or less. 0pp. ., and 79, 9ollo2.
Moreover, there is some truth in respondents; !ontention that $autista;s raisin" of the issue as to the de!ien!) in the
pa)ment of the do!3et fee is a dilator) ta!ti! be!ause he raised it onl) after the pre1trial -as nished. &urthermore, the
sub. mission of the !ompromise a"reement to this !ourt is an implied abandonment on $autista;s part of his petition
herein.
#s to the se!ond issue, it is evident that the lo-er !ourt, and not this %ourt, should be the one to approve or pass upon
the !ompromise t -hi!h is a set t of the main !a"e. The merits of the main case are not involved in the instant incident
regarding the docket fee.
I?:9:&O9:, the petition is dismissed for la!3 of merit. 4he lo-er !ourt;s orders of Jul) , and #u"ust +., 1978 xin"
the do!3et fee at PM are 4he restrainin" order is dissolved.
4he parties are to submit their !ompromise a"ree. Bud"ment to the lo-er !ourt for approval %osts a"ainst the
petitioner
SO O9=:9:=.