II. jurisdiction of various courts (RTC) 1.

Raymundo vs CA The court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. Where the basic issue is purely incidental to, or consequence of the principal relief sought, such actions as cases where the subject of litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, are cognizable exclusively by the CFI. Facts: Respondent Galleria de Magallanes filed a complaint against the petitioner for allegedly violating the master deed and declaration of restrictions of the association for unauthorized installation of glasses at the balcony of his unit. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that The said court has no jurisdiction over the present case, since the complaint for mandatory injuction considering that private respondents sole pecuniary claim of P10,000.00 as attorneys fees in Civil Case No. 90-490 is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for under Section 33 of B.P. 129. RTC denied the motion. Issue: w/n RTC has jurisdiction Held: yes. A civil action in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation has invariably been held to be within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. "In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts [now municipal trial courts] or in the courts of first instance [now regional trial courts] would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance [now regional trial courts]." the claim of attorneys fees by the private respondent in the amount of P10,000.00 is only incidental to its principal cause of action which is for the removal of the illegal and unauthorized installation of the glasses made by the petitioner and therefore, said amount is not determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. 2. De Leon vs CA Action for rescission is one which cannot be estimated

Facts: PR filed in the RTC of QC a complaint for the annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of 2 parcels of land against the petitioners. The petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction by reason of PRs non-payment of the correct amount of the docket fees, that they should have paid docket fees based on the value of the property. PR averred that the correct amount shall be the flat rate since it is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. RTC ruled in favour of the petitioners. Issue: w/n complaint filed is subject or capable of pecuniary estimation Held: no. actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance. And no cogent reason appears, and none is here advanced by the parties, why an action for rescission (or resolution) should be differently treated, a "rescission" being counterpart, so to speak, of "specific performance". action for rescission of contract is one which cannot be estimated and therefore the docket fee for its filing should be the flat amount of P200.00 as then fixed in the former Rule 141, 141, 5(10). Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of land, it is the nature of the action as one for rescission of contract which is controlling. action of petitioners [private respondents] against private respondents [petitioners] is solely for annulment or rescission which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, the action should not be confused and equated with the "value of the property" subject of the transaction; that by the very nature of the case, the allegations, and specific prayer in the complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money and/or value of the transaction, or for actual or compensatory damages, the assessment and collection of the legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits of the case and/or what may be its end result. 3. Russel vs Vestil While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document and therefore incapable of pecuniary estimation. Facts: petitioners filed a complaint against PR for the declaration of nullity and partition with RTC. That they (petitioners) are also the legal heirs; that prior to such filing of complaint, they discovered a document declaration of heirs and deed of confirmation of previous oral agreement of partition excluding them as the legal heirs entitled for partition. PR filed a motion to dismiss; that RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case as the value of the property is 5000 and fails within the MTC.

Petitioners averred that the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. RTC dismissed the complaint. Issue: w/n RTC has jurisdiction Held: In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment;[14] also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage,[15] annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid[16] and for rescession, which is a counterpart of specific performance.[17] the subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION." The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the document in which private respondents declared themselves as the only heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho and divided his property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.