You are on page 1of 2

Bokingo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 161739 4 May, 2006 Callejo, Sr., J.

: Topic: Jurisdiction determined whether the subject is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation. Facts: 1. Alfredo Bokingo is one of the defendants in a complaint for injunction and damages filed by Campos and the Busas, and some of their heirs, which was filed in the RTC of Butuan. The Busas are co-owners of the land in question, which they got from their father Celestino Busa as inheritance. 2. 3. 4. Bokingo and some others filed an application of titling of the land in their favour, before the DENR. When the Busas knew of the former’s application, they filed a protest. The latter’s protest were then granted. The Busas then requested for a Survey Authority to survey the land from the CENRO office, thus authorizing Ernesto Campos to do the survey. However, Bokingo and company prevented the Busas and Campos to enter the land. Even after availing the Barangay Justice System, the Busas were still prevented from entering the said land. Thus a case was filed by the Busas to enjoin Bokingo in doing his illegal acts. Bokingo then filed a motion to dismiss with the RTC alleging the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter involved possession of a land, and that the assessed value of the land was vital in determining the jurisdiction over the matter. He argued that according to Section 19(2) or Section (33)3 of BP 129, If the assessed value is 20k or less, jurisdiction is with the MTC. Otherwise, it’s with the RTC. More so, Bokingo contends that since the value of the land was not indicated, basing on his father’s last tax declaration covering the land, its assessed value is 14,410. Thus the proper jurisdiction of the matter is with the MTC. RTC denied his motion. Bokingo filed with the CA a petition for certiorari alleging grace abuse of discretion, which was again denied ruling that a petition for certiorari is unavailing because “an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and cannot be subject to certiorari” Bokingo should have filed a reconsideration, which he did not.

5.

6.

7.

Issues and Ruling: 1. WON an interlocutory order can be subject to an extraordinary petition for certiorari NO, as discussed above, petitioner must have filed a motion for reconsideration first. 2. WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the case YES, the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation which makes it properly cognizable by the RTC.

Ratio: 1. Sec. 19(1) of BP 129 provides that RTCs have the exclusive original jurisdiction in “all civil actions where the subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

2. In determining whether the subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature or the principal action
or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If the action is primarily a claim of a sum of money, it is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. However, if it is a claim other than for a sum of money, or the claim for a sum of money is mere incidental, then it is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

129. In this case.3. 19(1) of B. It is not even a possessory action to claim possession of the land. giving the RTC the exclusive jurisdiction under Sec. Either way. it is evident that the claim is to merely enjoin Bokingo in preventing the Busas in entering the land. .P. the action is still incapable of pecuniary estimation.