RTC Civil Case No.

2
G.R. No. 119347 (March 17, 1999)
Eulalia Russell, Puperto Taitho, Francisco Tautho, Susana T. Reales,
Apitacio Tautho, Danilo Tautho, Juditha Pros, Gregorio Tautho, Deodita T.
Judilla, Agrapino Tautho, Felix Tautho, William Tautho, and Marilyn
Peralea, petitioners
Vs.
Honorable Augustine A. Vestil, Adriano Tagalog, Marcelo Tautho, Juanita
Mendoza, Domingo Bantilan, Raul Bataluna and Artemio Cabatingan,
respondents.
Facts of the Case:
Upon the death of Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho, their land located at
Lot 6149, Liloan Cebu was inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners
and private respondents. The lot had remained undivided until they
discovered a public document which is a declaration of heirs and deed of
confirmation of a previous oral agreement, of partition, affecting the land
executed by and among the respondents whereby respondents divided the
property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are entitled
thereto as legal heirs also.
On September 28, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint against private
respondents with the RTC of Mandaue City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil
Case No. MAN-2275. They claimed that the document was false and
perjurious as the private respondents were not the only heirs and that no oral
partition of the property had been made between the heirs. The complaint
seek to declare the document null and void and an order e issued to partition
the land among all the heirs.
On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint on the basis of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the nature of
the case as the total assessed value of the land is Php5,000.00 which under
section 33 930 of Batas PAmbansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Liloan.

Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the RTC
has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129,
as amended.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. MAN2275
Ruling:
The complaint filed before the RTC is doubtless incapable of pecuniary
estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court. 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.
Source: (Eulalia Russel vs. Honorable Augustine A. Vestil, 1999)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/mar99/119347.htm

HEIRS OF GENEROSO SEBE v. HEIRS OF VERONICO SEVILLA G.R. No. 174497 |

October 12, 2009

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Facts:

Plaintiff spouses Generoso and Aurelia Sebe and their daughter, Lydia Sebe, (the
Sebes) filed with the RTC of Dipolog City a complaint against defendants
VeronicoSevilla and Technology and Livelihood Resources Center for Annulment of

Document, Reconveyance and Recovery of Possession of two lots, which had a total
assessed value of P9,910.00, plus damages.
The Sebes claimed that they owned the subject lots but, through fraud, defendant
Sevilla got them to sign documents conveying the lots to him. In his Answer Sevilla
insisted that he bought the lots from the Sebes in a regular manner.
While the case was pending before the RTC, plaintiff GenerosoSebe and defendant
VeronicoSevilla died so they were substituted by their heirs as respondents in this
case.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter considering
that the ultimate relief that the Sebes sought was the reconveyance of title and
possession over two lots that had a total assessed value of less than P20,000.00.
The RTC contended that it has jurisdiction over such actions when the assessed value
of the property exceeds P20,000.00, otherwise, jurisdiction shall be with the first level
courts. The RTC concluded that the Sebes should have filed their action with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dipolog City.
On the other hand, the Sebes pointed out that the RTC mistakenly classified their
action as one involving title to or possession of real property when, in fact, it was a
case for the annulment of the documents and titles that defendant Sevilla got. Since
such an action for annulment was incapable of pecuniary estimation, it squarely fell
within the jurisdiction of the RTC as provided in Section 19 of Batas Pambansa 129, as
amended.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sebess action involving the two lots valued at less than P20,000.00 falls
within the jurisdiction of the RTC (That is, was the Sebess action one involving title to, or
possession of, real property or any interest in it or one the subject of which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation)

Held:
NO. The action is one involving title to, or possession of, real property or any interest therein.

Ratio:
Whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a particular action is
determined by the plaintiffs allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in
the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts.

An action involving title to real property means that the plaintiffs cause of action is based on
a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal rights to have exclusive control,
possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. Title is the legal link between (1) a person
who owns property and (2) the property itself.

Title is different from a certificate of title which is the document of ownership under
the Torrens system of registration issued by the government through the Register of Deeds.
While title is the claim, right or interest in real property, a certificate of title is the evidence of
such claim. Title gives the owner the right to demand or be issued a certificate of title, the

holder of a certificate of title does not necessarily possess valid title to the real property. Thus,
a plaintiffs action for cancellation or nullification of a certificate of title may only be a
necessary consequence of the defendants lack of title to real property. Further, although the
certificate of title may have been lost, burned, or destroyed and later on reconstituted, title
subsists and remains unaffected unless it is transferred or conveyed to another or subjected to
a lien or encumbrance.

The Sebes alleged that defendant Sevilla violated their right of ownership by tricking them into
signing documents of absolute sale, rather than just a real estate mortgage to secure the loan
that they got from him. Assuming that the Sebes can prove that they have title to or a rightful
claim of ownership over the two lots, they would then be entitled, first, to secure evidence of
ownership or certificates of title covering the same and, second, to possess and enjoy
them. The court, in this situation, may in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction and without
ordering the cancellation of the Torrens titles issued to defendant Sevilla, direct the latter to
reconvey the two lots and their corresponding Torrens titles to them as true owners.

The present action is, therefore, not about the declaration of the nullity of the documents or
the reconveyance to the Sebes of the certificates of title covering the two lots. These would
merely follow after the trial court shall have first resolved the issue of which between the
contending parties is the lawful owner of such lots, the one also entitled to their
possession. Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not defendant Sevilla
defrauded the Sebes of their property by making them sign documents of conveyance rather
than just a deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. The action is, therefore, about
ascertaining which of these parties is the lawful owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction over
which is determined by the assessed value of such lots.

Here, the total assessed value of the two lots subject of the suit is P9,910.00. Clearly, this
amount does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold value of P20,000.00 fixed by law. The
other damages that the Sebes claim are merely incidental to their main action and, therefore,
are excluded in the computation of the jurisdictional amount. WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City
is AFFIRMED.