You are on page 1of 77

WMSU LLB2A 2015

Civil Procedure
Atty. Floriza Sales

MIDTERM CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Russell vs Vestil; GR. No. 119347 .................................................................................................................. 2
Heirs of Ceferina Ungria vs CA; GR No. 165777 ............................................................................................ 9
Heirs of Juanita Padilla vs Magdua; GR No. 176858 ................................................................................... 23
Sps. De Leon vs CA; GR No. 104796 ............................................................................................................ 32
Copioso vs Copioso, et. al.; GR No. 149243 ................................................................................................ 38
Heirs of Valeriano Concha vs Sps. Lumocso; GR No. 158121 ..................................................................... 42
Fortune Motors Inc. vs CA; GR No. 76431 .................................................................................................. 55
Relucio vs Lopez; GR No. 138497 ................................................................................................................ 60
Phil. Crop Insurance Corp. vs CA; GR No. 169558 ....................................................................................... 67
Municipality of Kapalong vs Moya; GR No. L-41322 ................................................................................... 75

1
MAS

WMSU LLB2A 2015
Civil Procedure
Atty. Floriza Sales

RUSSELL VS VESTIL; GR. NO. 119347
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999
EULALIA RUSSELL, PUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T. REALES, APITACIO
TAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO, JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA,
AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM TAUTHO, AND MARILYN PERALES, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTlL, ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA
MENDOZA, DOMINGO BANTILAN, RAUL BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO CABATINGAN, respondent.

KAPUNAN, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari to set aside the Order dated January 12, 1995 issued by
respondent Judge Augustine A. Vestil of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56,
dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners on ground of lack of jurisdiction, as well as his
Order dated February 13, 1995 denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the order of
dismissal.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On September 28, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents,
denominated "DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION," with the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaue City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-2275. The complaint, in substance,
alleged that petitioners are co-owners of that parcel of land, Lot 6149 situated in Liloan, Cebu
and containing an area of 56,977.40 square meters, more or less. The land was previously
owned by the spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Upon the death of said spouses,
the property was inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners and private respondents.
Since then, the lot had remained undivided until petitioners discovered a public document
denominated "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL
AGREEMENT OF PARTITION," executed on June 6, 1990. By virtue of this deed, private
respondents divided the property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are
also entitled to the said lot as heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho.
2
MAS

WMSU LLB2A 2015
Civil Procedure
Atty. Floriza Sales

Petitioners 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 whatsoever had been made
between the heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an
order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs. 1
On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss 2 the complaint on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the
subject land is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended
by R.A. No. 7691, 4 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Curt of
Liloan, Compostela. 5
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 6 saying that the Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation
within the contemplation of Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, as amended. 7
On January 12, 1995, the respondent judge issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss. 8 A
Motion for Reconsideration of said order was filed by petitioners on January 30, 1995 alleging
that the same is contrary to law because their action is not one for recovery of title to or
possession of the land but an action to annul a document or declare it null and void, 9 hence,
one incapable of pecuniary estimation falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
Private respondents did not oppose the motion for reconsideration.
On February 13, 1995, the respondent judge issued another Order denying the motion for
reconsideration. 10
Hence, this petition wherein the sole issue raised is whether or not the Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. MAN-2275.
We find merit in the petition.
Petitioners maintain the view that the complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is for the
annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION," which is clearly one incapable of pecuniary
estimation, thus, cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.
Private respondents, on the other hand, insists that the action is one for re-partition and since
the assessed value of the property as stated in the complaint is P5,000.00, then, the case falls
within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, Compostela, Cebu.
For better appreciation of the facts, the pertinent portions of the complaint are reproduced
hereunder:
xxx xxx xxx

3
MAS

5. which is a declaration of heirs and deed of confirmation of a previous oral agreement of partition. defendants had procured tax declarations of the land for their supposed "shares" to the great damage and prejudice of plaintiffs. and which in turn passed to the plaintiffs and defendants upon their death they being their descendants and legal heirs. That the subject parcel of land has for year been undivided by and among the legal heirs of said previous owners. That the property in controversy should be divided into seven (7) equal parts since Casimero Tautho and Cesaria N. Floriza Sales 3. That pursuant to said document (Annex "B"). located at Cotcot. That the instrument (Annex "B") is false and perjurious and is a complete nullity because the defendants are not the only heirs of Casimero Tautho. 8. which is more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land containing 56. plaintiffs are also heirs and descendants of said deceased. affecting the land executed by and among the defendants whereby defendants divided the property among themselves to the exclusion of plaintiffs who are entitled thereto. 6. namely: Zacarias. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria N. designated as Lot 6149 per Technical Description and Certification issued by the Office of the Land Management copy of which are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "A-1" and are made part hereof: total assessed value is P5. That. 4 MAS . attached hereto as Annex "B" and is made part hereof is xerox copy of said document. 10. That the passed to the children of the spouses (who are all deceased except for defendant Marcelo Tautho). Vicenta. Cebu.00. there has been no oral partition of the property. plaintiffs discovered a public document. moreover. That in life the spouses became the owners in fee simple of a certain parcel of land.97740 square meters. 4. 7. 11. That the parties had failed to settle the controversy amicably at the barangay level. Maria. Tautho who died long time ago. Felecisimo. more or less. attached hereto as Annex "C" is Certification to file Action.000. 9. Tautho had seven children. Epifania. Lorencia and Marcelo. very recently.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Liloan.

00 as attorney's fees. 17 While actions under Sec. 19(2). 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation. In Singsong vs. or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property involved does exceed P20.00. if located elsewhere.000. and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in instance would depend on the amount of the claim. WHEREFORE.00. support. 12 we had the occasion to rule that: [I]n 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.000. METC.00 as the case may be. the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC.00 in Metro Manila. Isabela Sawmill. 13 Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance. it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to declare null and void the document (Annex "B") of declaration of heirs and confirmation and to order the partition of the land into seven (7) equal parts. However. which is a counterpart of specific performance. plaintiffs were forced to bring instant action and contract the services of the undersigned counsel with whom they bind themselves to pay P30. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. 15 annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid 16 and for rescession. Floriza Sales 12. 11 We agree with petitioners. where the money claim is purely incidental to. or P50. Plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises.000.000.P. 18 However.000. the principal relief sought. or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment. If the value exceeds P20. each part shall respectively go to the seven (7) children of Casimero Tautho and considering six (6) of them died already the same shall go to their children or descendants. this Court has considered such where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. 14 also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage.00 or P50. it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. the subject matter of 5 MAS . 33(3) of B. and to order the defendants to pay plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of P30. or a consequence of. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. That by reason of the foregoing unjust and illegal act of defendants.000. where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money.

at 21. MAN-2275. 2 Id. litigation expenses and costs: Provided. 19 WHEREFORE." 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.000. Branch 56. attorney's fees. SO ORDERED. Jr. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. Davide.. premises considered. damages of whatever kind. 3. which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-described. this is just incidental to the main action. and Municipal Trial Courts. The Regional Trial Court. 6 MAS . 33. or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20. Melo and Pardo. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: xxx xxx xxx (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to.J. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property. Footnotes 1 Rollo. 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.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50..00) exclusive of interest. the petition is hereby GRANTED. is SET ASIDE. JJ.00) or in civil action in Metro Manila. No costs. MAN-2275. irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. 13-17. 3 Sec. or possession of real property. — Metropolitan Trial Courts.. Floriza Sales the complaint in this case is annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts.. C. The Order dismissing Civil Case No. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases.000. concur. pp. Mandaue City is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch in resolving Civil Case No. Municipal Trial Courts. as well as the Order denying the motion for reconsideration of said Order. That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes.

12 88 SCRA 623 (1979). 9 Id. at 26-28. Court of Appeals. otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. 15 Bunayog v. 18 Sec. at 24. 715. 213 SCRA 457 (1992). 19 SCRA 711. 14 Amorganda v... 16 Philippine Farming Corporation. Arroz v. 14 SCRA 949. 13 See also: Raymundo v. Ltd. Municipal Trial Courts... 19.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Scandia.. at 29. 10 Id. 7 Sec. 106 Phil. 17 Lapitan v. v. Floriza Sales the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. 213 SCRA 457 (1992). 6 Id. Tunos. Court of Appeals.. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: xxx xxx xxx 7 MAS . at 21. 5 Id. 4 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts. 19. at 14-16. 11 Id. and Municipal Circuits Trial Courts Amending for the purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 24 SCRA 479. —Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (1) in all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. at 22-23. 129. Jurisdiction in civil cases. xxx xxx xxx 8 Id. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Alojada. Llanos.

Floriza Sales (2) In all civil actions which involve title to. 268 SCRA 640.000. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Court of Appeals. original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. or any interest therein. where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50.00) or. or possession of real property. xxx xxx xxx 19 Garcia v.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings. where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20.000. 273 SCRA 239. 8 MAS . Court of Appeals. Caniza v. for civil actions in Metro Manila.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. 2004 and the Resolution2 dated September 17. 60764. Petitioner Ceferina filed a Motion to Dismiss4 (Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam) on the following grounds: (1) the claim or demand has been extinguished by virtue of the valid sale of Lot No. and/or for recovery of Rosario's conjugal share with damages or redemption of the subject land against petitioner Ceferina de Ungria. ROSARIO DIDELES VDA. (3) the action 9 MAS . vs. Ferolyn Castor Facurib (Ferolyn). GR NO. Rachel De Castor. SP No. defendants Avelino Gumban. de Castor (Rosario). Lea Castor Dollolosa and Rosalie Castor Benedicto. 2011 CEFERINA DE UNGRIA [DECEASED]. 165777 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. 1615 to Eugenio. filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City a Complaint3 for ownership.R. represented by LOLITA UNGRIA SAN JUAN-JAVIER. DECISION PERALTA. Ignacio Olarte and alias Dory. NEPTHALIE CASTOR ITUCAS. Zacasio Poutan. No. Floriza Sales HEIRS OF CEFERINA UNGRIA VS CA. petitioner's father. while the rest of the respondents are their legitimate children. Petitioner. (2) the action is barred by extraordinary acquisitive prescription.R. The documents they sought to annul are (1) the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest including Improvements thereon dated October 3. Nepthalie Castor Itucas. J. Dolores Cagaitan. and RHODORA R.: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Decision1 dated May 26. Respondents.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 165777 July 25. substituted by her HEIRS. BRANCH 35. RACHEL DE CASTOR. and ROSALIE CASTOR BENEDICTO. 1960 executed by Eugenio in favor of petitioner. 1999. 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. and (2) the Affidavit of Relinquishment dated November 23. 1960 allegedly executed by Fernando in favor of Eugenio de Ungria. DE CASTOR. FEROLYN CASTOR FACURIB. LEA CASTOR DOLLOLOSA. PO1 Jonas Montales. On August 26. and alternative causes of action either to declare two documents as patent nullities. Respondent Rosario is the surviving wife of the late Fernando Castor. respondents Rosario Dideles Vda. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY. PELOMIDA as their Attorney-in-fact. possession and damages.

the RTC resolved the Omnibus Motion in an Order12 that read in this wise: On the omnibus motion regarding filing fees. Respondents filed their Opposition thereto. respondents filed a Motion to Allow11 them to continue prosecuting this case as indigent litigants. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion10 asking the RTC to resolve the issues of (1) whether or not the complaint should be dismissed or expunged from the records pursuant to Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. Floriza Sales is barred by laches. therefore. the motion to dismiss is DENIED. the plaintiffs asserted in its motion that they are charging defendant actual and compensatory damages such as are proved during the hearing of this case. 2000." Considering the marriage of September 15. all to be proved during the hearing of this case. de Castor were married on September 15. Pending resolution of the motion.8 which the RTC denied in an Order9 dated February 4. Petitioner also filed an Addendum to the Motion to Dismiss5 raising the following additional grounds: (1) plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue. it is now ripe for resolution. 1615. Thus. 1952 and the patent was issued by the President on November 19. 2000. (2) reconsidering the findings contained in the Order dated February 4. and the application to the land was dated January 17. to wit: After the motion to dismiss and its addendum have been received. 1992.7 Petitioner Ceferina filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 1954. 2000. It is alleged that the late Fernando Castor and Rosario Dideles Vda. ½ thereof belongs to the wife. 7. 1960 which was made a part thereof as Annex "D. or filed the case prematurely for failure to resort to prior barangay conciliation proceedings. 1960 (Annex C) and an Affidavit of Relinquishment dated November 23. On March 8. and (4) plaintiff failed to state a cause of action. the RTC issued an Order6 denying the motion to dismiss. the said land became conjugal as of the date of the marriage and. The said land was sold to the defendant on October 3. 1952. de Castor. One of the grounds alleged in the complaint is for the recovery of conjugal share on Lot No. considering the above. 10 MAS . Rosario Dideles Vda. and (2) the court has no jurisdiction over the case for failure of plaintiffs to pay the filing fee in full. On November 19. 1999. So also are attorney’s fees and moral damages.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. of Pls-209 D with damages. and (3) holding in abeyance the submission of the answer to the complaint.

they are not in a possession (sic) to determine how much is to be charged.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification on whether plaintiffs should be allowed to continue prosecuting the case as indigent litigants. the plaintiff asserted in its motion that they are charging defendants actual and compensatory damages as has been proved during the hearing of this case. considering the total amount of the claim. 2000. 1999 and the subsequent orders issued by the RTC thereto for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Floriza Sales Since there was no hearing yet. WHEREFORE. if any amount is found due. they are not in a possession (sic) to determine how much is to be charged. As to the second issue. the RTC again denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Respondents filed their Comment thereto. Petitioner sought the nullification of the Order dated November 19. So also are attorney's fees and moral damages all to be proved during the hearing of this case. he must require the private respondent to pay the same x x x. the Clerk of Court should determine and. As to the motion seeking from the Honorable Court allowance to allow plaintiff to continue prosecuting this case as indigent litigants. the defendants shall file their answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Order. 13 From this Order. The defendant shall file their answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this order. WHEREFORE. At any rate. if after hearing the Clerk of Court determine that the filing fees is still insufficient. the same has already been decided in its order dated February 4. the omnibus motion is DENIED. thereafter. 2000. Since there was no hearing yet. after hearing. the same shall be considered as lien on the judgment that may be entered. 2000. On March 30. At any rate. suffice it to say that the same is already provided for in this order. the Clerk of Court determines that the filing fee is still insufficient. 11 MAS . premises considered.15 In an Order dated May 31. Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. the RTC issued a Clarificatory Order14 reading as follows: As has been said.

The CA found that SC Circular No. among others. we find it necessary to discuss the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. It found that the subject property is covered by a Torrens title (OCT No. Davao del Norte. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Preliminarily. 2004. that the Circular could be applied only in cases where the amount claimed or the value of the personal property was determinative of the court's jurisdiction citing the case of Tacay v. An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the 12 MAS .WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. that the defenses of acquisitive prescription and laches were likewise unavailing. 7691. v. the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the failure to state the amount of damages claimed in the body of the complaint or in the prayer thereof. The CA found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner's motion to dismiss.18 We find the petition without merit. (BP) 129. it is axiomatic that adverse. the same shall be considered as lien on the judgment that may be entered" was in accordance with the rule laid down in Sun Insurance Office. the CA dismissed the petition. 7 would not apply where the amount of damages or value of the property was immaterial. 2000. thus.16 The CA found that respondents had paid the corresponding docket fees upon the filing of the complaint. that unless there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced by a decision directing the return of the lot to petitioner. Respondents' complaint was filed in 1999. It noted that the RTC's Clarificatory Order dated March 30. which the CA denied in a Resolution dated September 17. which stated that "if after hearing the Clerk of Court determines that the filing fee is still insufficient. although not raised as an issue in this petition. thus. RTC of Tagum. at the time Batas Pambansa Blg. Hence. the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Ltd. the equitable defense of laches will not apply as against the registered owner. The CA ruled. Asuncion.17 The CA proceeded to state that a judicious examination of the complaint pointed to a determination of the respective rights and interests of the parties over the property based on the issues presented therein which could only be determined in a fullblown trial on the merits of the case. notorious and continuous possession under a claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title. V-19556). THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACTION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IS BARRED BY LACHES AND EXTRAORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION. Floriza Sales In a Decision dated May 26. this petition for review on certiorari where petitioner raises the following assignment of errors: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS DESPITE RESPONDENTS' NON-PAYMENT OF THE CORRECT DOCKET FEES. was already amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 2004.

or possession of. 33. Municipal Trial Courts. 19. 129. Municipal Trial Courts. we would first determine whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case based on the above-quoted provisions. 129. otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. or any interest therein. or possession of. Jurisdiction in civil cases. amending BP Blg. real property. or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. 129) is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts. where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20. Floriza Sales Metropolitan Trial Courts.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila. hence. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50. That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes. amending for the purpose BP Blg.000. where such value exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50.19 Section 1 of RA 7691.000. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: xxxx (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to. provides that the RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction on the following actions: Section 1. in civil actions in Metro Manila. Section 33 of the same law (BP Blg." is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. real property. thus: Section 3. litigation expenses and costs: Provided. xxx Section 3 of RA No. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. 129. except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings.00) or.000. (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to. 7691 expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg.00).00) exclusive of interest. Municipal Trial Courts.000. – Metropolitan Trial Courts. Respondents filed their Complaint with the RTC. the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. damages of whatever kind. 13 MAS . attorney's fees.

On their second cause of action. Clearly. purely simulated and without any consideration. Respondents also prayed in the alternative that if the Deed be finally upheld as valid. Respondents prayed that they be declared as absolute and lawful owners of the subject land and to order petitioner and the other defendants to vacate the premises and restore respondents to its possession and enjoyment therefore. and/or to allow them to redeem the subject land. 1960 executed by Eugenio in favor of petitioner Ceferina.00. inexistent.780. however. that Fernando's signature in the Deed of Transfer was not his but a forgery. since it is a real action with an assessed value of less than P20. Respondents also sought for the reconveyance to respondent Rosario of the undivided one-half portion of the subject land as conjugal owner thereof in case the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest will be upheld as valid.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. and/or for redemption of the subject land. that respondent Rosario and Fernando thought that when the latter's mother died in 1980. where Fernando had allegedly transferred his rights and interests on the subject land in favor of Eugenio.00 based on Tax Declaration No. but includes an 14 MAS . respondents claimed that Rosario and Fernando are the registered owners of the subject land with an assessed value of P12. as amended. It would appear that the first cause of action involves the issue of recovery of possession and interest of the parties over the subject land which is a real action. Respondents alleged that the assessed value of the subject land was P12. possession and damages. that the couple left the cultivation and enjoyment of the usufruct of the subject land to Fernando's mother and her second family to augment their means of livelihood. void ab initio and/or a patent nullity. this is a case of joinder of causes of action which comprehends more than the issue of possession of.000. as well as an Affidavit of Relinquishment dated November 23. respondents in the same Complaint filed alternative causes of action assailing the validity of the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest executed by Fernando in favor of petitioner's father. the subject land was in the enjoyment of the second family of his mother. or any interest in the real property under contention. and the Affidavit of Relinquishment was also void as it was a direct result of a simulated Deed of Transfer. Notably. they prayed that the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest Including Improvements Thereon be declared as a forgery. hence. but later learned that the subject land was leased by petitioner Ceferina.00. respondents learned of the existence of the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest including Improvements thereon dated October 3. to order petitioner to reconvey to respondent Rosario the undivided one-half portion of the subject land as conjugal owner thereof and to account and reimburse her of its usufruct. 1960. petitioner Ceferina's father. Floriza Sales The Complaint filed by respondents in the RTC was for ownership. In their Complaint. and alternative causes of action either to declare two documents as patent nullities and/or for recovery of conjugal share on the subject land with damages or redemption of the subject land. 15272.780. the case would fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC as provided under the above-quoted Section 33 (3) of BP 129. that sometime in August 1999. Thus. as well as the Affidavit of Relinquishment which was the direct result of the Deed of Transfer.

If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees. the principal relief sought. the assessed value of the property.22 Thus.23 It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading.. that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.(a) For filing an action or a permissive counter-claim or money claim against an estate not based on judgment. Floriza Sales action to annul contracts and reconveyance which are incapable of pecuniary estimation and. exclusive of interest.. or a consequence of. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. Isabela Sawmill. x x x In a real action. or a complaint-in-intervention. complaint.. where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money.24 Section 7(b)(1) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. if the total-sum claimed. and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). fourth-party... .21 we held that: 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. or if there is none. properly within the jurisdiction of the RTC. and for all clerical services in the same. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. P400. or the stated value of the property in litigation. thus. this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. or for filing with leave of court a thirdparty. is: xxxx (b) For filing: 1.. It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that when an action is filed in court. Actions where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated . and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However.20 In Singson v.. respondents correctly filed their Complaint with the RTC. the complaint must be accompanied by the payment of the requisite docket and filing fees. 7. but the payment of the prescribed docket fee. etc. where the money claim is purely incidental to.25 15 MAS .WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.00 2.

Thus." and PO1 Jonas Montales. jointly and severally.00 per hectare.27 and in their prayer asked: x x x Ordering the defendants. (b) for defendants Dolores Cagautan. that defendant Ignacio Olarte and Zacasio Puutan of occupying about one-half hectare each. (b) Ordering the defendants. 7 issued on March 24. We are not persuaded. Jurisdiction once acquired is never lost.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.00 was paid to the Clerk of Court. petitioner’s claim that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction in this case is premised on her contention that respondents violated SC Circular No. it continues until the case is terminated. to pay reasonable rentals to the plaintiffs in the proportion and amount assessed in paragraph 13 of the First Cause of Action. jointly and severally. the RTC should have dismissed the case. a certain alias "Dory. the docket fees should not be based on the assessed value of the subject land as claimed by petitioner in their memorandum.000. 26 Notably. in proportion to the length and area of their respective occupancy. to pay plaintiffs attorneys' fees and moral damages. once every four months. jointly and severally. but should be based on Section 7(b)(1) of Rule 141.00 a year per hectare. falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC. of an undetermined area. or P6. the RTC has properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint. Petitioner argues that respondents alleged in paragraph 13 of their Complaint that: (T)he reasonable rental for the use of the [subject] land is P2. 16 MAS . to pay plaintiffs actual and compensatory damages such as are proved during the hearing of this case. as assessed by the Clerk of Court. that defendants in proportion and length of time of their respective occupancy is and/or are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs of the produce thereby in the following proportions. 1998 requiring that all complaints must specify the amount of damages sought not only in the body of the pleadings but also in the prayer to be accepted and admitted for filing." only just few months ago. A perusal of the entries in the Legal Fees Form attached to the records would reflect that the amount of P400. all to be proved during the hearing of this case. viz: (a) for defendant Ceferina de Ungria for a period of time claimed by her as such. upon respondents' proof of payment of the assessed fees. together with the other fees.000. xxxx (a) Ordering the defendants. every crop time. thus. Floriza Sales Since we find that the case involved the annulment of contract which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation. the latter having entered the area sometime in 1998 and defendant alias "Dory.28 Thus. since respondents did not specify the amount of damages in their prayer.

Melicor. However. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. 2. Subsequently. the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. 32 17 MAS . Sun Insurance effectively modified SC Circular No. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 1988 which required that all complaints must specify the amount of damages sought not only in the body of the pleadings but also in the prayer in order to be accepted and admitted for filing. third-party claims and similar pleadings. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee. v. that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims. 7 was brought about by our ruling in Manchester Development Corporation v. to wit: 1. or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court. Asuncion. in Sun Insurance Office. the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading. but the payment of the prescribed docket fee. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but. Ltd.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.29where we held that a pleading which does not specify in the prayer the amount of damages being asked for shall not be accepted or admitted. 7. 3. and that the Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. the fact that private respondents prayed for payment of damages "in amounts justified by the evidence" does not call for the dismissal of the complaint for violation of SC Circular No. Court of Appeals. or shall otherwise be expunged from the record. It would then be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court of the trial court or his dulyauthorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fees. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading.31 we said: Furthermore. dated March 24. 7 by providing that filing fees for damages and awards that cannot be estimated constitute liens on the awards finally granted by the trial court.30 we laid down the following guidelines in the payment of docket fees. subsequently. x x x judgment awards which were left for determination by the court or as may be proven during trial would still be subject to additional filing fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment. Floriza Sales SC Circular No.

the sale was null and void because it violated the provisions of the Public Land Act. or for the allocation of the subject land to him vice the original settler Cadiente.33 Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also against his hereditary successors. the parcel of land subject of this case is a titled property. We are not persuaded. petitioner's possession of the land had already ripened into ownership after the lapse of 30 years from August 1952 by virtue of the extraordinary acquisitive prescription. 2000. where the RTC stated that "since there was no hearing yet. and that Fernando's application was only as settler. but only according to respondents.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Without solid evidentiary basis. that the late Fernando and private respondents had never taken possession of the land at any single moment. notorious and continuous since 1952 through her predecessor-in-interest. Petitioner contends that she took possession of the land in the concept of an owner. laches cannot be a valid ground to dismiss respondents' complaint. since there is a need to show supporting evidence when the petitioner and the other defendants started to possess the subject land. exclusive. the same is evidentiary in nature and cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings. titled in the name of the late Fernando Castor. Eugenio. Petitioner claims that respondent had impliedly admitted the fact of sale by Fernando to Eugenio in August 1952." Petitioner claims that the action is barred by extraordinary acquisitive prescription and laches. married to Rosario Dideles.34 In this case. Thus. and that. we find no reversible error committed by the CA when it ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC in issuing its Order dated March 30. the same shall be considered as lien on the judgment that may be entered. We find that these issues are factual which must be resolved at the trial of this case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses. Petitioner argues that the application of Fernando. Such argument does not persuade. Anent petitioner's defense of laches.35 Notably. the Clerk of Court determines that the filing fee is still insufficient. granting without admitting that the transfer of rights between Fernando and Eugenio was null and void for any reason whatsoever.e. i. was not the homestead application referred to in Sections 118 and 124 of the Public Land Act. open. and by herself up to the present.. Floriza Sales A reading of the allegations in the complaint would show that the amount of the rental due can only be determined after a final judgment. 1952. dated January 17. the allegations of respondents in their petition filed before the RTC which alleged among others: 18 MAS . It is a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that no title to registered land in derogation of the rights of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The trial in this case has not yet started as in fact no answer has yet been filed. respondents are not in a position to determine how much is to be charged and that after hearing.

telling her that it has something to do with the land above-described. WHEREFORE. that in that negotiation.1avvphil Thus. that the overtures developed into defendant Ceferina de Ungria meeting for the purpose plaintiff Ferolyn Castor Facurib where the negotiation continued with Lolita Javier as attorney-in-fact after defendant Ceferina de Ungria left to reside in Manila and which resulted later to the attorney-in-fact offering the plaintiffs P100. de Castor heard that the land above-described had even been leased by defendant Ceferina de Ungria with the Stanfilco and Checkered farm. Bula. appeared in the residence of plaintiff Rosario Dideles Vda. defendant Ceferina de Ungria. was refused by plaintiffs as so [insignificant] as compared to the actual value of the same land. DIOSDADO M. however. the petition for review is DENIED. 10. That even after the death of the mother of the late Fernando Castor in Bo. the latter and his surviving wife thought all the while that the land above-described was in the enjoyment of his late mother's family with his 2nd husband. and requested her to sign a folded document with her name only appearing thereon.00 to quitclaim on their rights over the said land. de Castor that she desires to settle with them relating to the land above-described. defendant Ceferina de Ungria was challenged to show any pertinent document to support her claim on the land in question and where she meekly answered by saying at the time that she does not have any of such document. it is necessary for petitioners to proceed to trial and present controverting evidence to prove the elements of laches. South Cotabato.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. That when the matter was brought home to Fernando Castor. SO ORDERED. which offer. City of General Santos. the latter just commented that [his] mother desires the land above-described to be sold to defendant Ceferina de Ungria which however he was opposed to do so even as they occasionally come into heated arguments everytime this insistence on the same subject propped up.1. 9. That sometime in 1997. who is the half sister-in-law of plaintiff Rosario Dideles Vda. sometime in 1980. PERALTA Associate Justice 19 MAS . Banga. more so that her husband was out at that time.000. de Castor in Bo. 8. that it was only after sometime when plaintiff Rosario Dideles Vda. That sometime between the years 1965 to 1970. defendant Ceferina de Ungria sent overtures to plaintiffs through Ester Orejana. Floriza Sales 7. of which she refused telling her that she better return it to the person who requested her to do so (referring to her motherin-law). x x x x36 would not conclusively establish laches. accompanied by Miss Angela Jagna-an.

at 55-66. Floriza Sales WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. 6636 and raffled off to Branch 35. 2011. 1042 dated July 6. 4 Id. Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. Camello. VELASCO. 20 MAS . Docketed as Civil Case No. RENATO C. concurring. pp. CORONA Chief Justice Footnotes * Designated additional member per Special Order No. at 175-179. at 34-46. ABAD Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. JR. 2 Id. 126-132. Dimaampao. rollo. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO. 3 Id.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Edgardo A. JR. Associate Justice ROBERTO A. Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation. CARPIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. Associate Justice Third Division. 1 Penned by Justice Japar B.

Nos. 478. 17 252 Phil. 439 Phil. Inc. 21 177 Phil. 8 Id. 149 SCRA 562. 1993. Asuncion. 18-19. vs. July 5. 180 SCRA 433.R. 11 Id. 12 Id. at 105-106 10 Id. 88075-77. 14 Id. 6 Id. supra note 16. at 94-104. 7 Id. 15 Id. 75919. See also Manchester Development Corporation v. pp. Nos. Floriza Sales 5 Id. 23 Tacay v. at 291. 224 SCRA 477. 568-569. 9 Id. v. G. 25 Underscoring supplied. December 20. 24 Pantranco North Express. 1987. at 93. 20 Copioso v. Copioso. 280 (1989).R. at 107-115. 936.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 21 MAS . 575 (1979). 105180. 942 (2002). at 588-589. 22 Id. 19 Took effect April 15. 18 Rollo. No.R. at 122. 13 Id. May 7. RTC of Tagum. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. G. at 87-90. supra note 17. 1994. Ltd. Davao del Norte. Sun Insurance Office. at 123. at 117-121. 1989. 16 G.

at 43-44. 487 SCRA 339. 32 Id. 34 Id. Bishop v.T. No. 92. January 14. 251. G. p. 22 MAS . 2009.R. 403 Phil. Velez. De Leon. Alcantara-Daus v. Abadiano v. v. 27 Rollo. Barcelona and Court of Appeals. 169108. and Barcelona. at 291-292. G. July 31. 2008. Ragudo v. 2009. 801 (2001). al. v. pp. 791.R. at 437. April 18. 576 SCRA 70. No. 641. 560 SCRA 676. July 31.R. 37-38. Sr. et. 751. 208 SCRA 636. 256-257 (1956).WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. G. 86787. Court of Appeals. 28 Id. Inc. 161237. Court of Appeals.R.R. 100 Phil. 30 Supra note 17.B. 1. v. 29 Supra note 23. 764 (2005). No. Demetrio. 436 Phil. G. 156310. 503 Phil. Inc. 102 (2003). Jr. 35 Macababbad. 167232. 693. 39. Masirag.. 1992. 452 Phil.-Mar Bay Construction. 9 (2002). No. Rev. 422 (2005). 350. May 8. Floriza Sales 26 Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. G. 33 D. Sps. Panes. No. Alonzo-Legasto. Martir. 594 SCRA 578. 2006. v. 87. Fabella Estate Tenants Association. 36 Rollo. 31 495 Phil. Villegas v.

2001-10-161. for recovery of ownership. owned a piece of land located in San Roque. On 26 October 2001.R. possession. 176858 September 15. The records do not show that the land was registered under the Torrens system. Petitioners. J. vs. The Facts Juanita Padilla (Juanita). Branch 34. No. represented by CLAUDIO PADILLA. sought to have the land partitioned. 176858 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G. Tanauan. Leyte. Petitioners sought to declare void the sale of the land by Ricardo’s daughters. petitioners filed an action with the RTC of Tacloban City. After Juanita’s death on 23 March 1989.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. the mother of petitioners. petitioners. 23 MAS . partition and damages. DECISION CARPIO. It was then discovered that Juanita had allegedly executed a notarized Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property 4 (Affidavit) in favor of Ricardo on 4 June 1966 making him the sole owner of the land. as legal heirs of Juanita. prejudicing their rights as co-heirs. Respondent. to respondent Dominador Magdua (Dominador). Branch 34. Petitioners sent word to their eldest brother Ricardo Bahia (Ricardo) regarding their plans for the partition of the land.: The Case Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Orders dated 8 September 20062 and 13 February 20073 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City. petitioners were surprised to find out that Ricardo had declared the land for himself. The sale was made during the lifetime of Ricardo. DOMINADOR MAGDUA. GR NO. Floriza Sales HEIRS OF JUANITA PADILLA VS MAGDUA. Josephine Bahia and Virginia Bahia-Abas. 2010 HEIRS OF JUANITA PADILLA. in Civil Case No. In a letter dated 5 June 1998 written by Ricardo addressed to them.

yet when one of the co-heirs appropriates the property as his own to the exclusion of all other heirs. Dominador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the assessed value of the land was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan. Petitioners also stated that prior to 1966. the RTC reconsidered its previous stand and took cognizance of the case. however. 24 MAS .7 Petitioners filed another motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied in an Order dated 13 February 2007 since petitioners raised no new issue. However. Ricardo had a house constructed on the land. Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal of the action. the order of the Court is reconsidered in so far as the pronouncement of the Court that it has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Kawayan. Petitioners further alleged that the signature of Juanita in the Affidavit is highly questionable because on 15 May 1978 Juanita executed a written instrument stating that she would be leaving behind to her children the land which she had inherited from her parents. Nonetheless. The RTC ruled that the case was filed only in 2001 or more than 30 years since the Affidavit was executed in 1966.00 was less than the amount cognizable by the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the case. Since actions to annul contracts are actions beyond pecuniary estimation. The RTC explained that while the right of an heir to his inheritance is imprescriptible. then prescription can set in. In an Order dated 20 February 2006. Dominador filed another motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. when Ricardo and his wife Zosima separated. SO ORDERED. Ricardo left for Inasuyan. the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case on the ground of prescription pursuant to Section 1. had the land transferred in his name without the consent and knowledge of his co-heirs. is maintained not by reason of lack of jurisdiction but by reason of prescription.6 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. Floriza Sales Petitioners alleged that Ricardo.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. The dispositive portion of the order states: WHEREFORE. through misrepresentation. The RTC added that since prescription had set in to question the transfer of the land under the Affidavit. Biliran and the house was leased to third parties.5 the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Leyte. In an Order dated 8 September 2006. it would seem logical that no action could also be taken against the deed of sale executed by Ricardo’s daughters in favor of Dominador. premises considered. the case was well within the jurisdiction of the RTC. The RTC explained that the assessed value of the land in the amount of P590. Petitioners argued that the action was not merely for recovery of ownership and possession. partition and damages but also for annulment of deed of sale.

Respondent Dominador. Petitioners insist that the Affidavit is not an act of appropriation sufficient to be deemed as constructive notice to an adverse claim of ownership absent a clear showing that petitioners. However.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. At the outset.8 We find that the conclusion of the RTC in dismissing the case on the ground of prescription based solely on the Affidavit executed by Juanita in favor of Ricardo. Dominador invokes the defense of acquisitive prescription against petitioners. were notified or had knowledge of the Affidavit issued by their mother in Ricardo’s favor. The Court’s Ruling Petitioners submit that the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription. maintains that Juanita. absurd or impossible. Dominador adds that the alleged ‘highly questionable signature’ of Juanita on the Affidavit was only made an issue after 35 years from the date of the transfer in 1966 until the filing of the case in 2001. (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case. The factual findings of the lower courts are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal except under any of the following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations. Dominador contends that the alleged written instrument dated 15 May 1978 executed by Juanita years before she died was only made known lately and conveys the possibility of being fabricated. if properly considered. this petition. Floriza Sales Hence. on the other hand. (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record. surmises or conjectures. never renounced her signature on the Affidavit or interposed objections to Ricardo’s possession of the land. Petitioners assert that the Affidavit became part of public records only because it was kept by the Provincial Assessor’s office for real property tax declaration purposes. As a buyer in good faith. (3) there is grave abuse of discretion. and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. The Issue The main issue is whether the present action is already barred by prescription. (5) the findings of fact are conflicting. Petitioners insist that the Affidavit executed in 1966 does not conform with the requirement of sufficient repudiation of co-ownership by Ricardo against his co-heirs in accordance with Article 494 of the Civil Code. (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken. absolute and in the concept of an owner. during her lifetime. as co-heirs. (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. which was open. such cannot be contemplated by law as a record or registration affecting real properties. (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that. would justify a different conclusion. (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based. the alleged seller of the 25 MAS . only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

10 Dominador merely assumed that Ricardo had been in possession of the land for 30 years based on the Affidavit submitted to the RTC. or ratified the sale made by his daughters to Dominador. Floriza Sales property from whom Dominador asserts his ownership. alleged that Ricardo left the land after he separated from his wife sometime after 1966 and moved to another place. Thus. 26 MAS . a lapse of more than 30 years.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. a review of the case is necessary. possession. The facts show that the land was sold to Dominador by Ricardo’s daughters. whether Ricardo had any intention to go back to the land or whether Ricardo’s family ever lived there. After all. on the other hand. However. In its 8 September 2006 Order. the RTC hastily concluded that Ricardo’s daughters had legal personality to sell the property: On the allegation of the plaintiffs (petitioners) that Josephine Bahia and Virginia Bahia-Abas had no legal personality or right to [sell] the subject property is of no moment in this case. the court shall dismiss the case. when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. No cogent evidence was ever presented that Ricardo gave his consent to. Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which states: Section 1. is speculative. however. Ricardo Bahia might have already consented to or ratified the alleged deed of sale. partition and damages. the RTC granted the motion to dismiss filed by Dominador based on Section 1. that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. However. in their pleading filed with the RTC for recovery of ownership. aside from the Affidavit. the alleged deed of sale was not presented as evidence and neither was it shown that Ricardo’s daughters had any authority from Ricardo to dispose of the land. The records do not mention. we find that the RTC incorrectly relied on the Affidavit alone in order to dismiss the case without considering petitioners’ evidence. during the lifetime of Ricardo. (Emphasis supplied) The RTC explained that prescription had already set in since the Affidavit was executed on 31 May 1966 and petitioners filed the present case only on 26 October 2001. No action could be taken against the deed of sale made in favor of Dominador without assailing the Affidavit. and the action to question the Affidavit had already prescribed. After a perusal of the records. – Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. Dominador did not present any proof to show that Ricardo’s possession of the land had been open. namely Josephine Bahia and Virginia BahiaAbas. continuous and exclusive for more than 30 years in order to establish extraordinary acquisitive prescription. The petitioners. Here. Defenses and objections not pleaded. 9 Also. acquiesced in. or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations. It should be Ricardo Bahia who has a cause of action against [his] daughters and not the herein plaintiffs.

Ricardo’s interest in the land had now become adverse to the claim of his co-heirs after repudiating their claim of entitlement to the land.12 we held that in order that title may prescribe in favor of one of the co-owners. (2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or other co-owners. after the Affidavit was executed. as expressed in Article 494 of the Civil Code which states: Art. x x x No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. that he adjudicated the land solely for himself. The heirs. Thus. and that they were apprised of his claim of adverse and exclusive ownership. as his co-heirs. it must be clearly shown that he had repudiated the claims of the others. Ricardo and petitioners are co-heirs or co-owners of the land. Although a tax declaration does not prove ownership. In Generosa v. 494. notified petitioners. partition and damages with the RTC on 26 October 2001. through a letter dated 5 June 1998. Further. Accordingly. Floriza Sales Further. the following requisites must concur: (1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-owners. Prangan-Valera. all three requisites have been met. in the present case. the prescriptive period began to run only from 5 June 1998. and (3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing. Since petitioners filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession.13 we held that the evidence relative to the 27 MAS . Co-heirs or co-owners cannot acquire by acquisitive prescription the share of the other co-heirs or co-owners absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership. However. Dominador merely relied on the Affidavit submitted to the RTC that Ricardo had been in possession of the land for more than 30 years. Court of Appeals.11 In the present case. After Juanita’s death in 1989. Since possession of co-owners is like that of a trustee. including Ricardo. Dominador failed to show that Ricardo had the land declared in his name for taxation purposes from 1966 after the Affidavit was executed until 2001 when the case was filed. petitioners sought for the partition of their mother’s land. Ricardo. in order that a co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to the cestui que trust or other co-owners. the date petitioners received notice of Ricardo’s repudiation of their claims to the land. Moreover. is erroneous. In Heirs of Maningding v. This three-year period falls short of the 10-year or 30-year acquisitive prescription period required by law in order to be entitled to claim legal ownership over the land. were notified about the plan.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. only a mere three years had lapsed. it is evidence of claim to possession of the land. Dominador did not submit any other corroborative evidence to establish Ricardo’s alleged possession since 1966. before the prescriptive period begins to run. Dominador cannot invoke acquisitive prescription. Dominador’s argument that prescription began to commence in 1966.

Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg.000. is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. real property. Municipal Trial Courts.000. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. we hold that the RTC did not err in taking cognizance of the case. as a fact. Under Section 1 of Republic Act No.000. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Dominador failed to present any other competent evidence to prove the alleged extraordinary acquisitive prescription of Ricardo over the land. 129. where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts. . where such value exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50. x x x On the other hand. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property. Dominador bought the land at his own risk. and Municipal Trial Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: xxx "(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to. original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts.Metropolitan Trial Courts. or any interest therein. 7691 (RA 7691). or any interest. complete and conclusive in order to establish the prescription. the RTC shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the following actions: Section 1. Since the property is an unregistered land. outside Metro Manila where the assessed value does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20. Floriza Sales possession. upon which the alleged prescription is based.000. 19. As a consequence. real property. Jurisdiction in civil cases. being aware as buyer that no title had been issued over the land. otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980". and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. "(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to. Here. Municipal Trial Courts. "(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.00) or. Section 3 of RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts. must be clear. The provision states: Section 3.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings.14 amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. 33. or possession of. or possession of. With regard to the issue of the jurisdiction of the RTC.00).00) or. 28 MAS . in civil actions in Metro Manila. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction. for civil actions in Metro Manila. Dominador is not afforded protection unless he can manifestly prove his legal entitlement to his claim. or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20.

Floriza Sales where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50. we GRANT the petition. as the principal evidence relied upon by the RTC to dismiss the case on the ground of prescription. insufficiently established Dominador’s rightful claim of ownership to the land.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. we find that the Affidavit.16 we held that: 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. litigation expenses and costs: Provided. That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes. Branch 34 in Civil Case No. the records show that the assessed value of the land was P590. damages of whatever kind. the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. petitioners argued that the action was not merely for recovery of ownership and possession. the principal relief sought. However. this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. being way belowP20. Since the principal action sought here is something other than the recovery of a sum of money." In the present case. 29 MAS . We REVERSE AND SET ASIDE the Orders dated 8 September 2006 and 13 February 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City.00 according to the Declaration of Property as of 23 March 2000 filed with the RTC. Isabela Sawmill. the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money. WHEREFORE.00. and (2) the validity of the deed of sale executed between Ricardo’s daughters and Dominador.000. where the money claim is purely incidental to. the MTC has jurisdiction over the case. In Singson v. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.17 In sum. 151avvphi1 Petitioners are correct. 2001-10-161. or a consequence of. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. When petitioners filed the action with the RTC they sought to recover ownership and possession of the land by questioning (1) the due execution and authenticity of the Affidavit executed by Juanita in favor of Ricardo which caused Ricardo to be the sole owner of the land to the exclusion of petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the land. Well-entrenched is the rule 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. Thus.000. we direct the RTC to try the case on the merits to determine who among the parties are legally entitled to the land. the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus cognizable by the RTC. Since annulment of contracts are actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money.00) exclusive of interest. irrespective of whether the party is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted. Based on the value alone. and are cognizable by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). attorney’s fees. However. partition and damages but also for annulment of deed of sale.

Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. ** 1 Designated additional member per Special Order No. CARPIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: PRESBITERO J. and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation. VELASCO. Floriza Sales SO ORDERED. 30 MAS .* Associate Justice LUCAS P. 883 dated 1 September 2010. 886 dated 1 September 2010. PERALTA Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Article VIII of the Constitution. ANTONIO T. CORONA Chief Justice Footnotes * Designated additional member per Special Order No. RENATO C. ANTONIO T. BERSAMIN** Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. JR.

id. reiterated in Russell v. 858 (1982). 12 G. 175952. at 19-20. 535 (1998). Penned by Presiding Judge Frisco T. at 28-29. G. 16 177 Phil.R. 129. 5 Id. 202 Phil. 553 SCRA 677." Approved on 25 March 1994. 601 (1988). 31 MAS . at 20. 313 Phil.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Floriza Sales 2 Id. 575 (1979). 480 (1916). 27 June 2008. 17-18. pp. No. 9 Rollo. citing Pangan v. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals.R. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila. 17 Radio Communications of the Philippines v. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. 7 Id. v. 30 April 2008. 15 Spouses de Leon v. Inc. G. 62 (2002). 14 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts. 3 Rollo. 20. Inc. at 42. Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. p. 36 (1995). FGU Insurance Corporation. No. 33 Phil. Hallasgo. 500 SCRA 620. Court of Appeals. Otherwise Known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Oliva. 364 Phil. 31 August 2006. Vestil. 11 Salvador v.R. 161539. 435 Phil. 10 See Article 1137 of the Civil Code. No. 350 Phil. 4 Id. 567 (1997).. 392 (1999) and Social Security System v. 13 342 Phil. at 30-31. 556 SCRA 194. 8 International Container Terminal Services. Cortes v. 248 Phil. Court of Appeals. Lilagan. 166521. Jardin v. 6 See Declaration of Property as of 23 March 2000.

THE COURT OF APPEALS. No.: The question for decision is whether in assessing the docket fees to be paid for the filing of an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale. praying for the following reliefs: 1. or whether the action should be considered as one which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and therefore the fee charged should be a flat rate of P400. Floriza Sales SPS. The facts are as follows: On August 8. DE LEON. GLICERIO MA. 1991. Ordering the nullification or rescission of the Contract of Conditional Sale (Supplementary Agreement) for having violated the rights of plaintiffs (private respondents) guaranteed to them under Article 886 of the Civil Code and/or violation of the terms and conditions of the said contract. GR NO.00 as provided in Rule 141. J. private respondents filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of two (2) parcels of land against petitioners. The trial court held the fees should be based on the value of the property. subject matter of the contract. petitioners. §7(b)(1) of the Rules of Court. ELAYDA II. DE LEON VS CA. and 32 MAS . FEDERICO ELAYDA and DANILO ELAYDA. vs. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 1998 SPOUSES ROSALINA S. 2. the value of the real property. but the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the flat rate should be charged. DE LEON and ALEJANDRO L. should be used as basis. 104796 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G. MENDOZA.respondents. 104796 March 6. Declaring void ab initio the Deed of Absolute Sale for being absolutely simulated.R.

1992 of the appellate court. arguing that outright dismissal of their complaint was not warranted on the basis of the alleged nonpayment of the correct amount of docket fees. They therefore. the petition for review on certiorari. Hence.00. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the trial court. private respondents should have paid docket fees in the amount of P21. 2 On September 26. based on the alleged value of the two (2) parcels of land subject matter of the contract of sale sought to be annulled. 3 On September 30. subject matter of the contract sought to be annulled or rescinded.00 for attorney's fees. on February 26. therefore. private respondents filed opposition to the motion to dismiss. brought the matter to the Court of Appeals which. petitioners filed a reply to which private respondents filed.000.00. 6834450. the trial court 5 denied petitioners' motion to dismiss but required private respondents to pay the amount of docket fees based on the estimated value of the parcels of land in litigation as stated in the complaint. a rejoinder.000. the docket fees should not be based on the value of the real property. 1991.00 — Docket fee for the General Fund under Official Receipt No. broken down as follows: P450. On October 21. The appellate court held that an action for rescission or annulment of contract is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation and. 1991. rendered a decision 6annulling the orders of the trial court. Ordering defendants (petitioners) to pay plaintiffs (private respondents) attorney's fees in the amount of P100. 1 Upon the filing of the complaint.00.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 1991. Floriza Sales 3. Other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable in the premises are also prayed for. 1991. 6834215 10. 33 MAS . 4 On October 9. 1992. 1877773 150. petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by reason of private respondents' nonpayment of the correct amount of docket fees.00 — for the Legal Research Fund under Official Receipt No.640. 1991. the clerk of court required private respondents to pay docket and legal fees in the total amount of P610. Petitioners contended that in addition to the fees already paid based on the claim for P100.00 — Docket fee for the Judicial Development Fund under Official Receipt No. on October 17. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. but their motion was denied in a resolution dated March 25. considering that the amount paid by them was that assessed by the clerk of court.

00 or more but less than P60.00 200. For each P1.00 7. in which they claimed an interest as heirs.00 2.00 (b) For filing: 1.00 3. as amended by the Resolution of the Court dated September 12. therefore. or its estimated value as alleged in the complaint. the assessed value of the property. P100.000.000.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.00 600. All other actions not involving property 400.000. Special civil actions except judicial foreclosure of mortgage which shall be governed by paragraph (a) above 400.00 400.00 or more but less than P80. Floriza Sales Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides: Sec.00 4.000. (emphasis added) Petitioners argue that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real property is a real action and. complaint. if the total-sum claimed. — (a) For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim against an estate not based on judgment. had been 34 MAS . exclusive of interest. 7. P40.00 3. or a complaint in intervention.000. subject matter of the action. pursuant to the last paragraph of §7(b) of Rule 141. etc. and for all clerical services in the same.00 150. P80.000.000.00 P120. Since private respondents alleged that the land.00 250. or for filing with leave of court a third-party. or the stated value of the property in litigation.000.00 in excess of P150.00 5.00 or more but less than P150.000.00 In a real action. Not more than P20. P60.00 2.000. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.00 or more but less than P100.00 6.00 but less than P40. the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees.000. More than P20. fourth-party. is: 1. Actions where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated P400. the amount of the docket fees to be paid by private respondent should be based either on the assessed value of the property. or if there is none.000.000. 1990.00 5.

00 in Rule 141. or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage. why an action for rescission (or resolution) should be differently treated. like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support. held: A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation.Pelayo. et al. 1967 (legality or illegality of the conveyance sought for and the determination of the validity of the money deposit made). L-13285. 1959 (validity of mortgage).WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 1967. Scandia. Inc. the principal relief sought. In support of their argument. where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money. or a consequence of. vs. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. Tunas.B.00 to petitioners. this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. L-26816. No award for damages may be had in an action for rescission without first conducting an inquiry into matters which would justify the setting aside of a contract. April 29.000. besides the determination of damages. In both cases. which were the lowest courts of record at the time that the first organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction (Act 136 of the Philippine Commission of June 11. this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. Bunayog v. the docket fees should be the fixed amount of P400. so. demand an inquiry into other factors which the law has deemed to be more within the competence of courts of first instance. Baito 35 MAS .. December 23. De Ursua v.378. they cite the cases of Lapitan v. and none is here advanced by the parties. of "specific performance". And no cogent reason appears. However. L-12707. or where the money claim is purely incidental to. 1966. April 18. 8 In Lapitan this Court. and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance. 1950 (validity of a judgment). so to speak. arising from issues like those raised in Arroz v. this amount should be considered the estimated value of the land for the purpose of determining the docket fees. in the same manner that courts of first instance would have to make findings of fact and law in actions not capable of pecuniary estimation expressly held to be so by this Court. the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. Yu Siu Liong. Inc. Actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance: De Jesus vs. March 31.L. in an opinion by Justice J. The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases. L-21285. §7(b)(1). 7 and Bautista v. private respondents counter that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary estimation and. February 28. Judge Garcia. On the other hand. Manufacturer's Distributors. Floriza Sales sold for P4. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. the court would certainly have to undertake an investigation into facts that would justify one act or the other. a "rescission" being counterpart. L-22153. 1901). Lim. Reyes. Alojado.

now respondent Matilda Lim. 1963 (the validity or nullity of documents upon which claims are predicated). (She should pay also the two pesos legal research fund fee. it is the nature of the action as one for rescission of contract which is controlling. Lapitan vs. September 30. As it said: We would like to add the observations that since the action of petitioners [private respondents] against private respondents [petitioners] is solely for annulment or rescission which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation. then the assessment should be deferred and finally assessed only after the court had finally decided the case. an amount already paid by plaintiff. Inc. Said this Court: We hold that Judge Dalisay did not err in considering Civil Case No. and that to sustain private respondents' [petitioners'] position on what the respondent court may decide after all. the right to support created by the relation. p. It is. and specific prayer in the complaint. §141. Law Center). therefore. Thus. August 25." the Court inBautista v. 1960 (the relations of the parties.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Conformably with this discussion of actions "where the value of the case cannot be estimated. the allegations. or by the plaintiff himself. Lim.00 as then fixed in the former Rule 141. §5(10). 1970 Ed. De Rivera.. if she has not paid it. the action should not be confused and equated with the "value of the property" subject of the transaction. Sarmiento. Issues of the same nature may be raised by a party against whom an action for rescission has been brought. 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. Floriza Sales v. although eventually the result may be the recovery of land. etc. 1968. sans any prayer for recovery of money and/or value of the transaction. Halili. difficult to see why a prayer for damages in an action for rescission should be taken as the basis for concluding such action as one capable of pecuniary estimation — a prayer which must be included in the main action if plaintiff is to be compensated for what he may have suffered as a result of the breach committed by defendant. the charter of the U. held that an 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. 55. July 31. The Court of Appeals correctly applied these cases to the present one. as required in Section 4 of Republic Act No. L-15159. and not later on precluded from recovering damages by the rule against splitting a cause of action and discouraging multiplicity of suits. V-144 as basically one for rescission or annulment of contract which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation (1 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court. 781-483). v. 3870. L-13105. that by the very nature of the case. or for actual or compensatory damages.. et al. Consequently. the fee for docketing it is P200. in actions for support). which cannot be done because the rules require 36 MAS . 24 SCRA 479.P. Scandia. L-24668.

Puno and Martinez. Regalado.. Floriza Sales that filing fees should be based on what is alleged and prayed for in the face of the complaint and paid upon the filing of the complaint. p. WHEREFORE. Annex C. 7 24 SCRA 479 (1968). Rollo. 6 Per Justice Artemon D. 8 88 SCRA 479 (1979). concur. Magsino. SO ORDERED. 2 Rollo. Luna and concurred in by Justices Serafin E. 3 Petition. Regino. Footnotes 1 Petition. JJ. 37 MAS . Melo. 27. Annex D. p. Annex E. pp. 4 Petition. the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Camilon and Celso L. 39-40. Rollo. 5 Per Judge Teodoro P. 47. Rollo. 51-52.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. p.

R. Copioso.000. Respondents alleged that they together with their deceased brother Antonio Copioso were coowners of the subject property having inherited the same from their parents.00. Floriza Sales COPIOSO VS COPIOSO. Mercedes Reduca. GR NO. against Lolita B. ESTEBAN. all surnamed Copioso. Rosario Pascua. filed a complaint2 for reconveyance of two (2) parcels of coconut land situated in Banilad. all surnamed COPIOSO. No. J. AL. RAFAEL.: This petition for review assails the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA G. and that through fraud and machination Antonio had the property transferred to his name and that of spouses Bernabe and Imelda Doria who subsequently sold the same to third parties. Nagcarlan. The trial court in its twin orders of 5 and 12 September 2000 denied the motions to dismiss holding that since the subject matter of the action was beyond pecuniary estimation it was 38 MAS . SP No.770. spouses Bernabe and Imelda Doria. vs. and COURT OF APPEALS. ET. 2002 LOLITA B. 62090 which dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari as well as its Resolution denying reconsideration thereof. DOLORES. When respondents claimed in a manifestation with motion for bill of particulars that the assessed value of the subject property was P3. and CORAZON. 149243 October 28.R. and the estate of deceased Antonio Copioso.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Elvira Bombasi and Federico Casabar. They thus prayed for the reconveyance of the property by virtue of their being co-owners thereof. petitioner Lolita Copioso and spouses Bernabe and Imelda Doria separately moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that had jurisdiction over the case considering that the assessed value of the property was lower than P20.. DECISION BELLOSILLO. as well as vendees Dolores Reduca. Esteban and Corazon.00. 149243 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G. On 4 July 2000 respondents Lauro. Dolores. respondents. Rafael. LAURO. Laguna. COPIOSO. petitioner.

19.000. She asserts that the allegations and relief prayed for in the complaint coupled with the assessed value of the disputed property place the action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC and not the RTC. – Metropolitan Trial Courts. Petitioner Lolita Copioso anchors her argument on Sec. Blg. (3). The appellate court denied the petition thus affirming the jurisdiction of the RTC over the complaint for reconveyance. 33.4 hence. or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed twenty thousand pesos (P20. damages of whatever kind. possession and interests" of each of the stakeholders over the subject parcels of land. 33. litigation expenses and costs: Provided. In turn. Floriza Sales properly within its jurisdiction. 33. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts. of the same law which provides Sec. where such assessed value does not exceed fifty thousand pesos (P50. 19 par. (1). deals with civil 39 MAS . in relation to Sec. attorney’s fees.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. par.00. The law on jurisdiction of trial courts over civil cases is neither ambiguous nor confusing. that in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes. of B. 129 as amended by RA 7691. Motion for reconsideration thereon was similarly denied by the appellate court. 129 otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 as amended by Sec. 19. hence this petition. in civil actions in Metro Manila. she filed with the Court of Appeals a petition forcertiorari and prohibition praying for the annulment of the twin orders of the trial court which denied the motions to dismiss and at the same time maintaining her position that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because the assessed value of the property was below P20. Jurisdiction in civil cases. they claim that the instant complaint for reconveyance is a case of joinder of causes of action which include the annulment of sale and other instruments of false conveyance incapable of pecuniary estimation thus within the legal competence of the RTC. private respondents anchor their position on Sec.P.00) exclusive of interest. Sec. or possession of. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: x x x x (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to. real property.P. Petitioner argues that the complaint for reconveyance cannot be resolved unless the trial court delves upon the issues of "title. – The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation: x x x Simply. 3 of RA 7691 which provides Sec.3 Lolita Copioso's Motion for Reconsideration was denied.00) or.000.000. par. (2) of B. par. (3). the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.

(3). possession of. the present dispute pertains to the title." Private respondents alleged therein that they were co-owners of the property along with their deceased brother Antonio Copioso. or P50. Clearly. considering the assessed value of the disputed property. this is a case of joinder of causes of action which comprehends more than the issue of title to. then petitioner Lolita Copioso would not be amiss in her assertion that the instant complaint for reconveyance. possession and interest of each of the contending parties over the contested property the assessed value of which falls within the jurisdictional range of the MTC. jurisdiction lies with the MTC. exemplary damages. 129. Antonio together with the spouses Bernabe and Imelda Doria made it appear in a public document entitled Pagpapatunay ng Kusang Loob na Pagbabahagi that they were the co-owners of the subject property and had divided the same equally between themselves to the exclusion of private respondents. As correctly opined by the appellate court.00 in Metro Manila. 33. Elvira Bombasi and Federico Casabar. (2). 40 MAS . jurisdiction is vested with the RTC. 19.P. and where it exceeds that amount. (3). possession of.00.500. provides that in civil cases involving sum of money or title to. and that in or about 1998. litigation expenses. and Restraining Order. 19. (1).00. forestall its cognizance by the MTC. Sec. applies to cases incapable of pecuniary estimation. Floriza Sales cases capable of pecuniary estimation. Private respondents also sought payment of moral damages. Rosario Pascua. attorney's fees plus appearance fees amounting to more or less P286. On the other hand. reconveyance or specific performance. in relation to Sec. they sold the subdivided lots to the other defendants namely Dolores Reduca. with fraud and machination. They also prayed of the trial court to order the cancellation. Sec. par. the complaint was for "Reconveyance and/or Recovery of Common Properties Illegally Disposed. in relation to Sec. as amended by RA 7691. par. Copioso and the estate of Antonio Copioso to return the price that the buyer-defendants had paid to them for the land sold. such that where the sum of money or the assessed value of the real property does not exceed P20.000. As can be readily gleaned from the records. with Damages.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the amount of the claim or the assessed value of the real property involved. the allegations set forth. of B. and the reliefs prayed for. and a claim for damages. or any interest in real property. par. annulment and/or rescission of the four (4) deeds of absolute sale made in favor of the buyers.000. if the only issue involved herein is naked possession or bare ownership. with Annulment of Sales and other Instruments of False Conveyance. or any interest in the real property under contention but includes an action to annul contracts. Subsequently. They likewise applied for a TRO pending the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from further alienating the common properties. which are incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus properly within the jurisdiction of the RTC. the nature of the action filed. and to order Lolita B. Nonetheless. Mercedes Reduca. Indeed. 33. par.

WMSU LLB2A 2015
Civil Procedure
Atty. Floriza Sales

falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. But as herein before stated, the issue of title,
ownership and/or possession thereof is intertwined with the issue of annulment of sale and
reconveyance hence within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the RTC. The assessed value of the
parcels of land thus becomes merely an incidental matter to be dealt with by the court, when
necessary, in the resolution of the case but is not determinative of its jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 16 May 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 62090 as well as its 30 July 2001 Resolution denying reconsideration thereof is
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.
Callejo, Sr., J., no part in deliberation.

Footnotes

1

Decision penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Elvi
John S. Asuncion and Josefina Guevara-Salonga, concurring.
2

Rollo, pp. 21-26.

3

Id., pp. 48-50.

4

Id., pp. 51-53.

41
MAS

WMSU LLB2A 2015
Civil Procedure
Atty. Floriza Sales

HEIRS OF VALERIANO CONCHA VS SPS. LUMOCS O; GR NO. 158121
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 158121

December 12, 2007

HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA, SR. NAMELY: TERESITA CONCHA-PARAN, VALERIANO P.
CONCHA, JR., RAMON P. CONCHA, EDUARDO P. CONCHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL
GUARDIAN, REYNALDO P. CONCHA, ALBERTO P. CONCHA, BERNARDO P. CONCHA and
GLORIA, petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES GREGORIO J. LUMOCSO1 and BIENVENIDA GUYA, CRISTITA J. LUMOCSO VDA. DE
DAAN, AND SPOUSES JACINTO J. LUMOCSO and BALBINA T. LUMOCSO,2 respondents.
DECISION
PUNO, C.J.:
On appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the decision3 and resolution4 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 59499, annulling the resolutions5 and order6 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, Branch 9, in Civil Case Nos. 5188, 5433 and 5434
which denied the separate motions to dismiss and Joint Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
respondents.
The relevant facts are undisputed.
Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim to be the rightful owners
of Lot No. 6195 (Civil Case No. 5188), a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A (Civil Case No.
5433), and a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A (Civil Case No. 5434), all
situated in Cogon, Dipolog City, under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A. No.
141), otherwise known as the Public Land Act. Respondent siblings Gregorio Lumocso (Civil Case
No. 5188), Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan (Civil Case No. 5433) and Jacinto Lumocso (Civil Case
No. 5434), are the patent holders and registered owners of the subject lots.
The records show that on August 6, 1997, Valeriano Sr.7 and his children, petitioners Valeriano
Jr., Ramon, Eduardo, Alberto, Bernardo, Teresita, Reynaldo, and Gloria, all surnamed Concha,
filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with Damages against "Spouses
Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida Guya." They sought to annul Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and
the corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-22556 issued in the name of
42
MAS

WMSU LLB2A 2015
Civil Procedure
Atty. Floriza Sales

"Gregorio Lumocso" covering Lot No. 6195. The case was raffled to the RTC of Dipolog City,
Branch 9, and docketed as Civil Case No. 5188. In their Amended Complaint, petitioners prayed
that judgment be rendered:
1. Declaring Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and Original Certificate of Title No. 22556 issued
to defendants as null and void ab initio;
2. Declaring Lot No. 6195 or 1.19122-hectare as private property of the plaintiffs under
Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141 otherwise known as the Public Land Act as amended by RA
1942;
3. Ordering the defendant Lomocsos to reconvey the properties (sic) in question Lot No.
6195 or the 1.19122 hectares in favor of the plaintiffs within 30 days from the finality of
the decision in this case and if they refuse, ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable
Court to execute the deed of reconveyance with like force and effect as if executed by
the defendant[s] themselves;
4. Ordering defendant Lomocsos to pay P60,000.00 for the 21 forest trees illegally
cut; P50,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for Attorney’s fees; P20,000.00 for
litigation expenses; and to pay the cost of the proceedings;
5. Declaring the confiscated three (sic) flitches kept in the area of the plaintiffs at
Dampalan San Jose, Dipolog with a total volume of 2000 board feet a[s] property of the
plaintiff [they] being cut, collected and taken from the land possessed, preserved, and
owned by the plaintiffs;
6. The plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies which this Honorable
Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.8
On September 3, 1999, two separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were filed by
petitioners,9 this time against "Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan" for a one-hectare portion of Lot
No. 6196-A and "Spouses Jacinto Lomocso and Balbina T. Lomocso" for a one-hectare portion of
Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A. The two complaints were also raffled to Branch 9 of the RTC of
Dipolog City and docketed as Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434, respectively. In Civil Case No. 5433,
petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered:
1. Declaring [a] portion of Lot 6196-A titled under OCT (P23527) 4888 equivalent to one
hectare located at the western portion of Lot 4888 as private property of the plaintiffs
under Sec. 48(B) CA 141 otherwise known as Public Land OCT (sic) as amended by RA
No. 1942;
2. Ordering the defendant to reconvey the equivalent of one (1) hectare forested
portion of her property in question in favor of the plaintiffs within 30 days from the
finality of the decision in this case segregating one hectare from OCT (P23527) 4888,
43
MAS

ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court to execute the deed of reconveyance with like force and effect. f) that "the land is private land or that even assuming it was part of the public domain. peacefully. 6196-A and one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6195. c) that they possessed this excess 4 hectares of land (which consisted of Lot No. 2. 5188) or January 1997 (for Civil Case Nos. spouses Concha "painstakingly preserved" the forest in the 24-hectare land. [and] disposed" of 21 trees (for Civil Case No. 141.A. No. 48(b) of [C.00 for moral damages. 5433) or 6 trees (for Civil Case No. 1996 (for Civil Case No. 5433 and 5434) when respondents. P20. in good faith and in concept of the (sic) owner since 1931.000. publicly. plaintiffs had already acquired imperfect title thereto" under Sec. 5434). one-hectare portion of Lot No.] 141 otherwise know[n] as the [P]ublic [L]and [A]ct as amended by RA 1942." d) that they continued possession and occupation of the 4-hectare land after the death of Dorotea Concha on December 23. Ordering defendants to pay P20. 5434. 1992 and Valeriano Sr.00 for litigation expenses.00 for Attorney's fees. intimidation.000. petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered: 1.000.000. 22 trees (for Civil Case No. illegally cut.00 for the 22 forest trees illegally cut.00 for the six (6) forest trees illegally cut. and Dorotea Concha) acquired by homestead a 24-hectare parcel of land situated in Cogon. ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court to execute the deed of reconveyance with like force and effect as if executed by the defendants themselves[. Ordering defendant to pay P30. adversely.000. 6196-B and 7529-A) "continuously. as if executed by the defenda[n]t herself. including the excess four (4) hectares "untitled forest land" located at its eastern portion. 5188). located at its Western portion and if they refuse.00 for litigation expenses. 1958. No.) No. Ordering the defendants to reconvey the equivalent of one (1) hectare forested portion of their properties in question in favor of the plaintiffs within 30 days from the finality of the decision in this case segregating one hectare from OCT (P-23207) 12870 and OCT (T-20845)-4889 all of defendants. collected. Dipolog City. P20.10 In Civil Case No. 48(b) of C.11 The three complaints12 commonly alleged: a) that on May 21. and to pay the cost of the proceedings. P20.00 for Attorney's fees. "by force. 1999.00 for moral damages.000.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.000. Floriza Sales located at its Western portion and if she refuse (sic). on May 12. petitioners' parents (spouses Valeriano Sr. Declaring [a] portion of Lot 7529-A under OCT (P-23207) 12870 and Lot 6196-B OCT (P-20845) 4889 equivalent to one hectare located as (sic) the western portion of said lots as private property of the plaintiffs under Sec. b) that since 1931. [and] stealth forcibly entered the premises. and to pay the cost of the proceedings. 3.000. P20.A. P20.A. as amended by Republic Act (R. notoriously. e) that the Concha spouses "have preserved the forest trees standing in [the subject lots] to the exclusion of the defendants (respondents) or other persons from 1931" up to November 12.] 3. P20. 44 MAS .

under Section 19(1) of B. The trial court denied the respective motions to dismiss of respondents. g) that respondents allegedly cut into flitches the trees felled in Lot No. and k) that the lots in question have not been transferred to an innocent purchaser. SP No. laches and estoppel. h) that respondents "surreptitiously" filed free patent applications over the lots despite their full knowledge that petitioners owned the lots. 5188) while the logs taken from the subject lots in Civil Case Nos. On separate occasions. this appeal in which petitioners raise the following issues.P.16 to no avail.) 129. Floriza Sales 1942. The CA ruled that an action for reconveyance based on fraud prescribes in ten (10) years. (b) failure to state causes of action for reconveyance. abandonment.WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE COURT A QUO DENYING THE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL. 7691.17 Dissatisfied. 129. as amended by R. viz: FIRST . 5433 and 5434 were sold to a timber dealer in Katipunan.A. as amended by R. i) that the geodetic engineers who conducted the original survey over the lots never informed them of the survey to give them an opportunity to oppose respondents' applications. The CA found it unnecessary to resolve the other issues. Petitioners opposed. j) that respondents' free patents and the corresponding OCTs were issued "on account of fraud. Zamboanga del Norte. the totality of the claims must be considered which. fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTCs.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 6195 (Civil Case No. deceit. (c) prescription. respondents contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. respondents jointly filed a Petition for Certiorari. They also contended that they have two main causes of action: for reconveyance and for recovery of the value of the trees felled by respondents. docketed as CAG. the assessed values of the subject lots are less than P20. bad faith and misrepresentation". No.P. and (d) waiver. hence.A. 59499.R.00. It held that even assuming that the complaints state a cause of action. respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases against them on the same grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matters of the complaints. as in each case. Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Restraining Order Ex Parte18 with the CA. allegedly falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.000. Hence. Hence. 7691.15 The respondents filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. if computed. In its Decision.19 the CA reversed the resolutions and order of the trial court. CONSIDERING THE DISMISSAL OF A PARTY COMPLAINT IS PREMATURE AND 45 MAS . the instant complaints must be dismissed as they involve titles issued for at least twenty-two (22) years prior to the filing of the complaints.13 On the issue of jurisdiction. (B. the same have been barred by the statute of limitations.14 contending that the instant cases involve actions the subject matters of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation which.

Thus. the RTC has jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of B.WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT PETITIONERS OWN THE SUBJECT FOREST PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE TITLES OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. b)Swan v. which provides that the RTC has jurisdiction "[i]n all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. CA25 where it was held that an action for annulment of title is under the jurisdiction of the RTC. SECOND . d) the claims for reconveyance in the complaints are barred by waiver. and 46 MAS .R.23 petitioners contend that the nature of their complaints.20 In their memorandum. 59499) DEFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE CITING THE CASE OF CATUIRA VS. and e) there is no special reason warranting a review by this Court. 129. Floriza Sales TRIAL ON THE MERITS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO THRESH OUT EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. CA26 where it was similarly held that an action for annulment of title. or otherwise extinguished by laches and estoppel. THIRD . Since the issue of jurisdiction is determinative of the resolution of the instant case yet the CA skirted the question. c)Santos v.P.WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION OF HEREIN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FILED WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHTLY FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' THEREIN FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 1 RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO SUBMIT CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF THE ASSAILED ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH RENDERED THEIR PETITION (CA G.21 respondents reiterated their arguments in the courts below that: a) the complaints of the petitioners in the trial court do not state causes of action for reconveyance. we resolved to require the parties to submit their respective Supplemental Memoranda on the issue of jurisdiction.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITIONERS' COMPLAINTS ON [THE] GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION." Petitioners cited: a) Raymundo v.22 In their Supplemental Memorandum. The cases allegedly involve more than just the issue of title and possession since the nullity of the OCTs issued to respondents and the reconveyance of the subject properties were also raised as issues. as denominated therein and as borne by their allegations. the same have already been barred by prescription. CA24 which set the criteria for determining whether an action is one not capable of pecuniary estimation. or annulment or cancellation of OCTs and damages. abandonment. reversion and damages was within the jurisdiction of the RTC. COURT OF APPEALS (172 SCRA 136). c) the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant cases. are suits for reconveyance. b) assuming the complaints state causes of action for reconveyance. FOURTH .

and Dorotea P. which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other persons' names.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.P. disposed a total of [twenty-one (21) trees for Civil Case No. viz: (a) That plaintiff Valeriano S. Floriza Sales d) Commodities Storage and ICE Plant Corporation v. they contend that the RTC has jurisdiction under Section 19(2) of B.30 The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve actions for reconveyance.000. 5188. It is enough that the aggrieved party has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner 33 and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. The following are also the common allegations in the three complaints that are sufficient to constitute causes of action for reconveyance. it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought. 129. 34 The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the instant cases typify an action for reconveyance. to its rightful and legal owners. 5433 and 5434] when defendants[. CA27 where it was held that "[w]here the action affects title to the property.00). they have included in their prayers "any interest included therein" consisting of 49 felled natural grown trees illegally cut by respondents. or to those who claim to have a better right. collected. the total amount prayed by petitioners exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20. 5188] and January 1997 [for Civil Case Nos. twenty-two (22) trees for Civil Case No. together with his spouse Dorotea Concha have painstakingly preserve[d] the forest standing in the area [of their 24-hectare homestead] including the four hectares untitled forest land located at the eastern portion of the forest from 1931 when they were newly married.29 To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case. 5433 and six (6) trees for Civil Case No.35 (b) That spouses Valeriano S. illegal[ly] cut. Hence. Concha have preserved the forest trees standing in [these parcels] of land to the exclusion of the defendants Lomocsos or other persons from 1931 up to November 12.31 An action for reconveyance respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property. the date they acquired this property by occupation or possession. [and] stealth[." Petitioners also contend that while it may be argued that the assessed values of the subject properties are within the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court (MTC). 32 There is no special ground for an action for reconveyance. 1996 [for Civil Case No. Concha Sr. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.] forcibly entered the premises.] by force. Concha.36 47 MAS . Combining the assessed values of the properties as shown by their respective tax declarations and the estimated value of the trees cut. it should be filed in the RTC where the property is located. intimidation. 5434] of various sizes. Sr.28 It is conferred by law and an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties.

original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts. No. Municipal Trial Courts. 129.A. the applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.] otherwise known as the Public Land Act[.00 48 MAS .37 (d) That [respondents and their predecessors-in-interest knew when they] surreptitiously filed38 [their respective patent applications and were issued their respective] free patents and original certificates of title [that the subject lots belonged to the petitioners].000.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: x x x (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to. Floriza Sales (c) That this claim is an assertion that the land is private land or that even assuming it was part of the public domain. plaintiff had already acquired imperfect title thereto under Sec.39 (e) [That respondents' free patents and the corresponding original certificates of titles were issued] on account of fraud. where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50. 141[. 7691. 40 and (f) The land in question has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser.500. x x x. In the cases at bar. 42 Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove cloud on one's title. Assessed Value 5188 6195 P1. real property. Lot No. [7691].A. viz: Section 19.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings. it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in Cogon. as amended by R.030. to wit: Civil Case No.] No. bad faith and misrepresentation. 48(b) of [C. or any interest therein.00.P. where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20. deceit.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila.41 These cases may also be considered as actions to remove cloud on one's title as they are intended to procure the cancellation of an instrument constituting a claim on petitioners' alleged title which was used to injure or vex them in the enjoyment of their alleged title.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. or possession of. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.000.] No.A.] as amended by [R. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.-.00 5433 6196-A 4. Dipolog City and their assessed values are less than P20.000.

A. under Section 19(1) of B.00 7529-A 1.000.P. litigation expenses and costs. [MTCs]. Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19(1) of B.47 as amended. This amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier administration of justice. 129 or one involving title to property under Section 19(2). real property. 129 is erroneous. Section 44(b) of R. real property or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. or any interest thereinwhere the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20. or possession of. Raymundo involved a complaint for mandatory injunction. 296. are inapplicable to the cases at bar. or any interest therein. as amended)."49 The cases of Raymundo v.43 Hence.880. 296.P. under the old law. Floriza Sales 5434 6196-B 4. the MTC had jurisdiction." Thus.000. The Court defined the criterion for determining whether an action is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation and held that the issue of whether petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restriction of 49 MAS . damages of whatever kind. original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts. possession of. No.51 relied upon by the petitioners. 129 as well as its forerunner.A.A. or possession of.340. real property. we have held that actions for reconveyance44 of or for cancellation of title45 to or to quiet title46 over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to.00." Thus.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50. except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings.000. hence. under the present law. 129 is divided between the first and second level courts. The bone of contention was whether the case was incapable of pecuniary estimation considering petitioner's contention that the pecuniary claim of the complaint was only attorney's fees of P10. real property. the MTC clearly has jurisdiction over the instant cases.00) exclusive of interest. 769148 in 1994 which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include "all civil actions which involve title to. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (conferred upon the city and municipal courts under R. original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which involves "title to. attorney's fees.00) or." The original text of Section 19(2) of B. or any interest therein. there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a case is one. CA50 and Commodities Storage and ICE Plant Corporation v. gave the RTCs (formerly courts of first instance) exclusive original jurisdiction "[i]n all civil actions which involve the title to. The distinction between the two classes became crucial with the amendment introduced by R. CA. in civil actions in Metro Manila. or possession of. In a number of cases.P. not one for reconveyance or annulment of title. the subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation. with the assessed value of the real property involved as the benchmark.

or possession of. said amount was not determinative of the court's jurisdiction. Clearly." However.54 In this case.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty..00. The claim for attorney's fees was merely incidental to the principal action. or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.000. the Court classified actions for "annulment of title" and "cancellation of title. is clear that the RTC shall exercise jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to. 7691. 7691. before the passage of R. Maria. the Court similarly held that the complaint for cancellation of title. No.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila. The action therein was for damages. hence. 129. 1994. IN VIEW WHEREOF. it is only the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed.000. 5188. reversion and damages" as civil actions that involve "title to. real property. In Swan. the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED that the RTC of Dipolog City. where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20. the Court held that the action being one for annulment of title. The venue in Civil Case No. 5433 and 5434.000." It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the subject properties may be included in the term "any interest therein. Maria Ice Plant & Cold Storage is located in Sta. or possession of. reversion and damages is also one that involves title to and possession of real property under Section 19(2) of B. 50 MAS .A. In Santos. the cases of Swan v. 129. In resolving the issue of venue.A.P. Azcuna.P. it should be instituted in the [RTC] where the property is situated. accounting and fixing of redemption period which was filed on October 28. Nor can Commodities Storage and ICE Plant Corporation provide any comfort to petitioners for the issue resolved by the Court in said case was venue and not jurisdiction. Corona. No. Floriza Sales the Corporation is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. 129." Worse. has no jurisdiction in Civil Case Nos. Petitioners' contention that the value of the trees cut in the subject properties constitutes "any interest therein (in the subject properties)" that should be computed in addition to the respective assessed values of the subject properties is unavailing. concur. while the Court held that the RTC had jurisdiction. No.P. Section 19(2) of B. Branch 9. Bulacan. there is no dispute that the assessed values of the subject properties as shown by their tax declarations are less than P20. CA52 and Santos v. The complaints in Swan and Santos were filed prior to the enactment of R. the RTC had original jurisdiction under Section 19(2) of B. jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC. 7691. 94-727076 was therefore improperly laid. 129. contradict their own position that the nature of the instant cases falls under Section 19(1) of B. as amended by R. the Court held that "[w]here the action affects title to property. the law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction. where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50. real property.A.P. Sandoval-Gutierrez. 129. SO ORDERED. Ynares-Santiago. JJ. CA53 cited by the petitioners.00). The Sta. or any interest therein. Thus.P.

id. 5 Annexes "M. 13 Motion for Preliminary Hearing of Affirmative Defenses for the Dismissal of the Complaint and the Instant Case (Civil Case No. 5188). 5434). id. 2002. Opposition to Motion [to] Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5433). 2 The Court of Appeals was removed as public respondent pursuant to Section 4. 10 Id. id. id. Floriza Sales Footnotes 1 Also referred to as "Lomocso" or "Lumucso" in the records. 98-99. 1999." "N" and "O" of the Petition. 4 Promulgated on April 10. 5433). id. Inc. 338 SCRA 499. id. 143-158 (Civil Case No. 3 Promulgated on November 29. Opposition to Motion [to] Dismiss (Civil Case No. 6 Annex "R" of the Petition.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. at 281-285. 137705. 9 Id. at 93-106 (Civil Case No. id. 2000. 2003. at 233-248. 5188). Motion to Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5434). 15 In its separate Resolutions all dated December 9. 1999. 51 MAS . at 212231. at 281-295. at 169-189. v. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and our ruling in Serg's Products. 7 Died on May 12. Inc. Motion to Dismiss (Civil Case No. at 305-306. pp. 5188). 504..R. PCI Leasing and Finance. at 16. 11 Id. at 191-210. No. at 119-125. pp. 143-149. Rollo. id. August 22. 14 Opposition to Motion for the Dismissal of the Complaint (Civil Case No. at 124. 5433). 291295. at 249-264. 8 Rollo. id. 286-290. 5434). G. at 148-149. 7-14. 12 Id. 119-132 (Civil Case No. at 265-280. id.

25 G. 32 Hi-Tone Marketing Corp. 213 SCRA 457..R. 30 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions. 672. 72 Phil. 514 (1941).R. No. 313 SCRA 47.R. G.R. D. 159 SCRA 515. G. 1992. Diaz. Mapa. 181 SCRA 431. 19 Dated November 29. Fernandez. 149992. 499. 1992. G. v. 283. 138971. citing Lucena v. 1992. Padilla.R. v. 274 SCRA 439. G. 38387. No. Roxas. No. L-58822.. The Philippine Torrens System (1965). at 7-14.R. September 2.R. 439 SCRA 667. No. citing Perkins v. 23 Id. 2004. Villon.R. 288. September 30. 20 Id. 22 Id. 156264. 52 MAS . 212 SCRA 114.. pp. 106 Phil. at 36-37. CA. 125008. 442. 437 SCRA 121.R. 77468. August 4. 2004. at 305-306. 358 SCRA 489. 97319. at 722-733. 31 Rollo. August 25. at 703-710. 1997. Inc. citing Walstrom v. citingReyes v. 591 (1959). 484. 214 SCRA 162. 28 Allied Domecq Phil. 35 Rollo. at 568-641. at 296-301. April 8. 73 Phil. at 307-334. id. 21 Id. No. No. No. 33 Ponce. September 23. Baikal Realty Corp. id. 293. No. June 19. 143. 486 (1941). Floriza Sales 16 Id. 94. 17 Order dated May 10.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 2000. August 20. 144. 1988. 2001. 27 G. Sangalang. 29 Republic v. 1990. June 6. v.. 1999. 120. 34 Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. et al. 2002. p. 24 G. Jr. G. pp. No. Florencio. 26 G.R. January 29. 61218. 213. et al. 18 Id. 97805.

Estate of the late Mercedes Jacob v. 132. 1991.R. CA. impost or assessment. CA.R. otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. G. 105. 212 SCRA 114. except actions of forcible entry into and detainer of lands or buildings. x x x. 43 Rollo. August 4. 37 Ibid. 146. 768. 214 SCRA 162. 203 SCRA 420. Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines Vol. original jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon city and municipal courts. 421. 38 Id. 46 Mendoza v. Heirs of Susana De Guzman Tuazon v.R. 269 SCRA 764. 40 Ibid. at 95-96. 145-146. March 14. 1992. 158. 45 Santos v. 147. or the legality of any tax. 129. 61218. November 12. pp. December 22. or any interest therein. 39 Id. No. — Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction: x x x (b) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property. 48 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts. 145. G. Swan v. 125758. Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 49 Sponsorship Speech of Senator Biazon. at 96. No.. 420 SCRA 219. G. CA. Floriza Sales 36 Id. 121. Teh. which provides that: SECTION 44." as amended. 97319. No. G. 121-122. at 97. No.R. Campos. 122646. supra. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Heirs of Susana De Guzman Tuazon v. at 95.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Original jurisdiction. 122. No. 120435. 41 Id. 47 Also known as "The Judiciary Act of 1948. 53 MAS . 121. G. CA. Arturo M. 283 SCRA 474. 123. 1993. 42 See Tolentino. 1992. CA. G. 163. pp." approved on March 25. 1997. Municipal Trial Courts.R. 44 Abrin v. September 23. January 20. 157. 52740. II (1992). 1997. 148-149. 1994. Record of the Senate dated October 6. No. 2004.R.

826.L. 457 SCRA 815. 53 Supra Note 26. Doctrines Enunciated in Ponencias on Jurisdiction. 51 Supra Note 27. April 29. G. 54 Hilario v.. 160384. 2005. Procedure and Evidence Including Useful Outlines (2002). p. See also Aquino. Remedial Law.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.R. No. Floriza Sales 50 Supra Note 24. H. 52 Supra Note 25. 218. 54 MAS . Salvador.

or for the partition or condemnation of. may be instituted in the Court of First Instance where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found. 1950. — Real actions or actions affecting title to. PERSONAL ACTIONS. VENUE THEREOF. p. REAL ACTION. or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. ID.) 55 MAS . Bautista. 76431 SECOND DIVISION [G. a real action is an action affecting title to real property. 760. METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY. 1207. 84 Phil. — Personal actions upon the other hand. Petitioner. Llamas. (Gavieres v. or for the partition or condemnation of. 101 Phil.. 1954) An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real property. SYLLABUS 1. CIVIL PROCEDURE. VS CA. Rule 4. 1989. 81 Phil. Garchitorena v. ACTION TO ANNUL REAL ESTATE FORECLOSURE OR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY.R. (Comments on the Rules of Court by Moran.. No. Sanchez. or foreclosure of mortgage on real property. Its prime objective is to recover said real property. — A prayer for annulment or rescission of contract does not operate to efface the true objectives and nature of the action which is to recover real property. Register of Deeds. ID. Quintan. 1. Macadaeg. or for the recovery of possession. Vol. or as indicated in Sec. — In a real action.. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. October 16. v. VENUE THEREOF. ID. (PHILS.). the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property.] FORTUNE MOTORS. 122) 2. must be instituted in the Court of First Instance of the province where the property or any part thereof lies. at the election of the plaintiff (Sec.. or for the recovery of possession.. Cruz & Associates Law Offices for Private Respondent. I. Revised Rules of Court). 76431. 2 (a) of Rule 4. 1948). 97. ID. 87 Phil. GR NO. (Inton. or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides. (Enriquez v. Et Al.. Respondents. (Muñoz v.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. INC. 4. An action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property is a real action. 674. Floriza Sales FORTUNE MOTORS INC. 737. CONSTRUED. 1957) 3. A REAL ACTION. 1949. v. 94 Phil. Quirante & Associates Law Office for Petitioner.

2. (Rollo. 62) For failure of the petitioner to pay the loans. Jr.chanrobles. Herminio C. the respondent bank initiated extrajudicial 56 MAS . v.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. or P34.500. private respondent Metropolitan Bank extended various loans to petitioner Fortune Motors in the total sum of P32. the petitioner was not able to pay the loan which became due. ACTION TO ANNUL FORECLOSURE SALE OF REALTY. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case. 1. SP No. p.00 (according to the borrower. AFFECTS TITLE OF THE PROPERTY.150.ph : virtual law library The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library On March 29." dismissing Civil Case No. v... his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which. under the law. an action to annul the foreclosure sale is necessarily an action affecting the title of the property sold.000.000. Mariano. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v.com. which is to recover said real property. 1986 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Respondent Court. (Rollo. Vda. — While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question. 09255 entitled "Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. RECOVERY THEREOF THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE. the recovery of which is petitioner’s primary objective. (Punzalan. Et. PROVINCE WHERE PROPERTY OR PART THEREOF LIES. It is a real action. Rule 16)." DECISION PARAS. ID. It is therefore a real action which should be commenced and tried in the province where the property or part thereof lies. 6. PROPER VENUE. J. Floriza Sales 5. 1982 up to January 6. Al. Rizal.00 according to the Bank) which loan was secured by a real estate mortgage on the Fortune building and lot in Makati. de Lacsamana. ACTION TO ANNUL SALE OF REAL PROPERTY. — "Since an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property results in a conveyance of the title of the property sold to the highest bidder at the sale. 1984.R. Rule 4) which was timely raised (Sec. did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue (Sec.) Inc. therefore. Branch IV for improper venue and (b) the resolution dated October 30." filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 1986 decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-G. 85-33218 entitled "Fortune Motors (Phils. [1983]). ID. is considered immovable property.: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of: (a) the July 30. Hon. 60-62) Due to financial difficulties and the onslaught of economic recession. 121 SCRA 336. pp.

com. pp. (Rollo. Costs against the private Respondent. therefore the action to annul the foreclosure sale should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. After notices were served. (Rollo. 1986 an order was issued by the lower court reserving the resolution of the Bank’s motion to dismiss until after the trial on the merits as the grounds relied upon by the defendant were not clear and indubitable. 1984 with the one-year redemption period to expire on October 24. (Rollo. 93-96.264. 15) A motion for reconsideration was filed on August 11. The complaint in the Civil Case No. a decision was issued by the Court of Appeals. (Rollo.91 to mortgagee Bank as the highest bidder. (Rollo. Annex "N" p. p. 12) On October 21. 1986. pp. there was no public auction. 11) The sheriff s certificate of sale was registered on October 24. three days before the expiration of the redemption period. posted. petitioner Fortune Motors filed a complaint for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale alleging that the foreclosure was premature because its obligation to the Bank was not yet due. 81) The Bank filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated January 8. 67-71-A) The motion was opposed by petitioner Fortune Motors alleging that its action "is a personal action" and that "the issue is the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings" so that it may have a new one year period to redeem. and published. and the price for which the property was sold was "shockingly low. the mortgaged property was sold at public auction for the price of P47. the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. 99) On June 11.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty."cralaw virtua1aw library SO ORDERED. 1985. (Rollo. 85-33218 is dismissed without prejudice to its being filed in the proper venue. 1986 on the said decision and on October 57 MAS . p. 1986 but it was denied by the lower court in its order dated May 28. 1985. 1986. (Rollo. the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles. p. pp." (Rollo. 72-73) On January 8. Annex "L" pp. (Rollo. Floriza Sales foreclosure proceedings. the publication of the notice of sale was incomplete. p. 100-115) And on July 30. 1986 the respondent Bank filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals. Annex "O" pp.899.ph "WHEREFORE. 60-68) Before summons could be served private respondent Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the venue of the action was improperly laid in Manila for the realty covered by the real estate mortgage is situated in Makati.

129) Hence. 2 (a) of Rule 4. Rule 4. 1948) An action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property is a real action. 1207. In a real action. 760. and pay deposit for costs in the amount of P80. p. v. (Gavieres v. 121-123. (Inton. (Rollo. (Rollo. 1987 the Court gave due course to the petition. Llamas. or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides. or foreclosure of mortgage on real property. p.. at the election of the plaintiff (Sec. 1. or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. 84 Phil. I. 1987. 94 Phil. 97. 45-59. the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property. Vol. 130-136 Res. Macadaeg. or as indicated in Sec. required the parties to file their respective memoranda within twenty (20) days from the notice hereof. On June 10. Floriza Sales 30. Et Al. Annex "S" p. or for the recovery of possession. Metrobank’s Memorandum pp. or for the recovery of possession. Garchitorena v. 737. 101 Phil. (Enriquez v. 1954) An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real property. (Comments on the Rules of Court by Moran. 87 Phil. his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely 58 MAS . 1957) Personal actions upon the other hand. or for the partition or condemnation of.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad Both parties have filed their respective memoranda. (Muñoz v. may be instituted in the Court of First Instance where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found. the petition for review on certiorari. Its prime objective is to recover said real property.40. 138) The only issue in this case is whether petitioner’s action for annulment of the real estate mortgage extrajudicial foreclosure sale of Fortune Building is a personal action or a real action for venue purposes. Annex "O" pp. Sanchez. a real action is an action affecting title to real property. 122) Real actions or actions affecting title to. and the case was submitted for Court’s resolution in the resolution dated December 14. 81 Phil. 674. 1986 a resolution was issued denying such motion for reconsideration.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Register of Deeds. Quintan. 1950) While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question. or for the partition or condemnation of. Revised Rules of Court). A prayer for annulment or rescission of contract does not operate to efface the true objectives and nature of the action which is to recover real property. petitioner’s memorandum pp. 1949. must be instituted in the Court of First Instance of the province where the property or any part thereof lies.

1. the pertinent portion reads: "Since an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property results in a conveyance of the title of the property sold to the highest bidder at the sale. JJ. It is a real action. the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Thus. Respondent Court. de Lacsamana. is considered immovable property. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case. which is to recover said real property. under the law. Floriza Sales intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which. It is therefore a real action which should be commenced and tried in the province where the property or part thereof lies. Rule 4) which was timely raised (Sec. Griño-Aquino. Melencio-Herrera. Padilla. v. (Punzalan. [1983]). Rule 16). Sarmiento and Regalado. did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue (Sec. an action to annul the foreclosure sale is necessarily an action affecting the title of the property sold. therefore. 2. as aptly decided by the Court of Appeals in a decision penned by then Court of Appeals Associate Justice now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Carolina C. 121 SCRA 336..WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. concur. the recovery of which is petitioner’s primary objective. 59 MAS . Jr."cralaw virtua1aw library PREMISES CONSIDERED. Vda.

which are in the names of defendant Lopez and petitioner 60 MAS . have amassed a fortune consisting mainly of stockholdings in Lopez-owned or controlled corporations. PARDO. maintained an illicit relationship and cohabited with herein petitioner since 1976. in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. residential. as found by the Court of Appeals. spending and using the same for his sole gain and benefit to the total exclusion of the private respondent and their four children. Floriza Sales RELUCIO VS LOPEZ. FORFEITURE. M-3630.R. Proc. are as follows: "On September 15. ANGELINA MEJIA LOPEZ. during their period of cohabitation since 1976. These properties. agricultural. abandoned the latter and their four legitimate children. No. GR NO. "It was further alleged that defendant Lopez and petitioner Relucio. who is legally married to the private respondent.: The Case The case is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to set aside the decision2 of the Court of Appeals that denied a petition for certiorari assailing the trial court's order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the case against her inclusion as party defendant therein. J. In the petition. petitioner. The Facts The facts. commercial lots. Branch 141. herein private respondent Angelina Mejia Lopez (plaintiff below) filed a petition for "APPOINTMENT AS SOLE ADMINISTRATIX OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF PROPERTIES. private-respondent alleged that sometime in 1968.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 138497 January 16. defendant Lopez. 138497 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G. vs. 1993. cars and other motor vehicles. docketed as Spec. that he arrogated unto himself full and exclusive control and administration of the conjugal properties. after abandoning his family. bank accounts and jewelry.." against defendant Alberto Lopez and petition Imelda Relucio. 2002 IMELDA RELUCIO. respondent. that defendant Lopez. houses. ETC. apartments and buildings.

1994 was issued by herein respondent Judge denying petitioner Relucio's Motion to Dismiss on the ground that she is impleaded as a necessary or indispensable party because some of the subject properties are registered in her name and defendant Lopez. 1996. removed or stashed away properties. 1996. 1994 but the same was likewise denied in the Order dated May 31. the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. assigned. actual contribution from petitioner Relucio. canceled.1âwphi1. stashed away or concealed them from the private-respondent. or solely in her name. Floriza Sales Relucio singly or jointly or their dummies and proxies.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. assets and income belonging to the conjugal partnership with the private-respondent and either spent the proceeds thereof for his sole benefit and that of petitioner Relucio and their two illegitimate children or permanently and fraudulently placed them beyond the reach of the private-respondent and their four children. "An Order dated February 10. "On December 8. 1994. "Subsequently thereafter. 1994. He placed substantial portions of these conjugal properties in the name of petitioner Relucio. 1993. property and industry of defendant Lopez with minimal. disposed of. have been acquired principally if not solely through the actual contribution of money."3 On June 21. 5 On June 26.8 The Issues 61 MAS .7 Hence.6 However. petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. he has sold. he excluded the private respondent and their four children from sharing or benefiting from the conjugal properties and the income or fruits there from. transferred. the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision denying the petition. As such. defendant Lopez either did not place them in his name or otherwise removed.4 On May 31. a Motion to Dismiss the Petition was filed by herein petitioner on the ground that private respondent has no cause of action against her. 1996. alienated. this appeal. petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari assailing the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss. "In order to avoid defendant Lopez obligations as a father and husband.nêt "It was also averred that in the past twenty five years since defendant Lopez abandoned the private-respondent. on April 6. transferred. if not nil. petitioner Relucio filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Order of the respondent Judge dated February 10.

to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action alleged in Special Proceedings M3630. and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.12 In order to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action. accounting.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.13 Hence."10 The elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created." respondent Angelina Mejia Lopez summarized the causes of action alleged in the complaint below. Whether petitioner's inclusion as party defendant is essential in the proceedings for a complete adjudication of the controversy. 62 MAS . Whether respondent's petition for appointment as sole administratrix of the conjugal property. Lopez established a cause of action against petitioner. The complaint is by an aggrieved wife against her husband. rather than that a claim has been merely defectively stated or is ambiguous.11 A cause of action is sufficient if a valid judgment may be rendered thereon if the alleged facts were admitted or proved. 2. We resolve the issues in seriatim. First issue: whether a cause of action exists against petitioner in the proceedings below. (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right. indefinite or uncertain. etc. the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist. Nowhere in the allegations does it appear that relief is sought against petitioner. Respondent's causes of action were all against her husband. against her husband Alberto J.9 The Court's Ruling We grant the petition. Floriza Sales 1. we assays its allegations. "A cause of action is an act or omission of one party the defendant in violation of the legal right of the other. In Part Two on the "Nature of [the] Complaint.

her first cause of action is against Alberto J. Lopez to surrender such share. Respondent's asserted right to forfeit extends to Alberto J. to wit: "If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family." The third cause of action is essentially for forfeiture of Alberto J. Lopez' share alone. Lopez' own words."17 References to petitioner in the common and specific allegations of fact in the complaint are merely incidental. Respondent alleges that Alberto J. if any there be. assuming the trial court finds in respondent's favor. the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership. one by "an aggrieved wife against her husband. There is no right-duty relation between petitioner and respondent that can possibly support a cause of action. Lopez] and the [respondent]. Failure of Alberto J. results in a breach of an obligation to respondent and gives rise to a cause of action. The action in Special Proceedings M-3630 is. 63 MAS . however. for judicial separation of property. no cause of action can exist against petitioner on this ground. to set forth facts and circumstances that prove the causes of action alleged against Alberto J. Floriza Sales The first cause of action is for judicial appointment of respondent as administratrix of the conjugal partnership or absolute community property arising from her marriage to Alberto J. Lopez. Petitioner has nothing to do with the marriage between respondent Alberto J. to the exclusion of all other persons. Support cannot be compelled from a stranger. Hence. Lopez and petitioner. It does not involve the issue of validity of the co-ownership between Alberto J. Lopez. Therefore. pertains to Alberto J. The respondent also sought support. The second cause of action is for an accounting "by respondent husband. not petitioner. Lopez. Lopez' share. or for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property xxx" The administration of the property of the marriage is entirely between them. Lopez. Lopez' share in property coowned by him and petitioner.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. In fact. 16 Such cause of action. Article 128 of the Family Code refers only to spouses. Lopez. Respondent's alternative cause of action is for forfeiture of Alberto J. none of the three elements of a cause of action exists. Lopez is her husband. in property co-owned by him with petitioner. Petitioner is a complete stranger to this cause of action. to use respondent Angelina M. The issue is whether there is basis in law to forfeit Alberto J." 14 The accounting of conjugal partnership arises from or is an incident of marriage. Lopez' share in the coowned property "acquired during his illicit relationship and cohabitation with [petitioner]"15 and for the "dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between him [Alberto J.

and give support to respondent and their children. respondent would be accorded complete relief if Alberto J. Footnote 64 MAS . Makati.. A real party in interest is one who stands "to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit.1âwphi1.J. Lopez. An indispensable party is one without whom there can be no final determination of an action. respondent's claim for moral damages is against Alberto J. The Judgment WHEREFORE. and dissolve Alberto J. JJ.20 In the context of her petition in the lower court."18 In this case.. and Ynares-Santiago. the trial court can issue a judgment ordering Alberto J. Such judgment would be perfectly valid and enforceable against Alberto J. concur. A necessary party as one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as party if complete relief is to be accorded those already parties. SO ORDERED. Kapunan.. the complaint must have the character of an action for interference with marital or family relations under the Civil Code. Certainly. Lopez' share in property co-owned by him and petitioner. C. Floriza Sales Finally. or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.21 The Court DISMISSES Special Proceedings M-3630 of the Regional Trial Court.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Lopez were ordered to account for his alleged conjugal partnership property with respondent.19 Petitioner's participation in Special Proceedings M-36-30 is not indispensable. Branch 141 as against petitioner. petitioner would not be affected by any judgment in Special Proceedings M3630. give support to respondent and her children. not petitioner. the Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals.nêt No costs. Puno. If petitioner is not a real party in interest. Nor can petitioner be a necessary party in Special Proceedings M-3630. Lopez to make an accounting of his conjugal partnership with respondent. she cannot be an indispensable party. Lopez' conjugal partnership with respondent. To sustain a cause of action for moral damages. turn over his share in the co-ownership with petitioner and dissolve his conjugal partnership or absolute community property with respondent. and forfeit Alberto J. as to the moral damages. Davide. Lopez. Jr.

19 Rule 3. 7 Petition. 341 SCRA 486. Salonga v. 13 Dulay y. Ltd. Ibay. Note 10. 243 SCRA 220 [1995]. 6 CA Rollo. 12 Racoma v. Rollo. SP No. pp. 34398. Court of Appeals. 114-119. 28-39.. 28-31. 15 Ibid. CA Rollo. 43. Revised Rules of Court. 17 Rollo. v. 4 Docketed as CA-G. Rollo. On September 15. pp. 8 Filed on June 18. 148-A Phil.. 14 Rollo. 86-87). Revised Rules of Court. pp.Somera. Annex "A". pp. Sandiganbayan. Jr. 18 Rule 3. Court of Appeals. SP No. 9 Memorandum. Floriza Sales 1 Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. 113-137. 5 Petition. Republic v. 1996. 18-19.. 170 SCRA 518 [1989]. 44. the Court gave due course to the petition (Rollo. 34398. 16 Kramer. Centeno. 2 In CA-G. pp. JJ.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 10 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. p. 125 [1951]. 28-39. pp. J. 88 Phil. Lipana Reyes+ and Agcaoili. 40. 44. p. 28-39. 214 [1952]. 65 MAS . Annex "A". 1999. concurring. p. Rollo. 1999. Fortich. 20 Rule 3. 10-27. at p. at pp. 120. Section 2. 203 SCRA 310 [1991]. posted by Registered Mail. 343 SCRA 153. Petition. promulgated on May 31. 3 Rollo. 160 [2000]. Rollo. Centeno v. Petition. pp. ponente. 42-62. Section 8. 454. Warner Barnes & Co. Centeno. Revised Rules of Court. Annex "A".. Rollo. pp. R. citing Amedo v. 11 Centeno v. 460 [1971]. Annex "B". 490 [2000].. Rio. Court of Appeals. Section 7. 92 Phil. at p. R. supra. pp.

Floriza Sales 21 In CA-G.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. SP No. 66 MAS . R. 34398.

. OSMUNDO M. AQUINO.. PATROCINIA D. petitioner seeks the nullification of the Decision1dated January 27. ALMERON. 169558 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION PHILIPPINE CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION. ESTRELLA MAY K. VICENTE T. JUDGE ELMO N. RAMON P. JR.... DELFRANDO T. ALAMEDA. ELVIRA SIMANGAN-INTERIOR.. WILLIE U.. No. COURT OF APPEALS.. GUMASING.... The facts in this case are as follows.. RENATO S. HERRERO. 6123. FERI.. CHARITO A. G.. PADDAYUMAN.... ANTALAN. CARANGUIAN. in Civil Case No..: In this special civil action for certiorari before us.-x DECISION QUISUMBING.R.... 169558 Present: ... Promulgated: September 29....... Chairperson. CALUBAQUIB.... 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City.. CELESTINO P. TELITA C.. Tinga. 67 MAS . J...R. CRUZ. SP No. 77773. 2005 and the Resolution2 dated August 4. J.Respondents.. GR NO. TEGA.. MAPAGU.. CROP INSURANCE CORP.. MALLILLIN. SEVILLA. NESTOR M. TERESITA A.. BARASI. MIGUEL. TABANIAG and CIRILO B.. ROMEO P. ROSA P.. DE ROMA. and BRION. DELFIN B. 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. LYDIA H. Floriza Sales PHIL. 2008 x..versus Quisumbing. VELASCO. ALLAS. Carpio Morales.. HON. ROBERTO T. Cagayan..WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.... VS CA.. Branch 5. JR. which had dismissed its earlier petition for certiorari assailing the Order3 dated May 13..Petitioner.. JJ.

Barasi. Telita C. Celestino P. Almeron. Miguel. whichever is earlier. Delfin B. Calubaquib. are all retired employees and officers of petitioner. Herrero. Prior to the effectivity on July 1. Osmundo M. Mallillin. They also argued that there was 68 MAS . de Roma. Tega. petitioner stopped paying the aforecited benefits to private respondents. Rosa P. 2003. Aquino. Allas. Feri. 10 in De Jesus v. Delfrando T. Willie U. Paddayuman. Private respondents Renato S. Romeo P.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. To implement the law. But petitioner still refused to pay them. Gumasing. Lydia H. Jr. Patrocinia D. They added that the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel8 and the Commission on Audit9 sustained their entitlement to the subject benefits. Caranguian. Commission on Audit6 due to its non-publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country. Mapagu. amelioration allowance equivalent to 10% of their basic salary and additional COLA known as equity pay. They prayed that petitioner be ordered to pay them the subject benefits from July 1. Branch 5. private respondents were employed with PCIC and were receiving cost of living allowance (COLA) equivalent to 40% of their basic salary. Tabaniag and Cirilo B. Roberto T.11 private respondents averred that the sufficiency of the complaint should be tested based on the strength of its allegations and no other. Teresita A. Estrella May K. 2003. private respondents instituted an action for specific performance against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City. It disallowed without qualification all allowances and fringe benefits granted to said employees on top of their basic salary effective November 1. Pursuant to DBM-CCC No. 10. 1989 of Republic Act No. Antalan. Ramon P. They alleged that the nullification of DBM-CCC No. Elvira Simangan-Interior. In their opposition. 1989. the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No. Vicente T. (2) the subject benefits have already been integrated into the basic salaries of private respondents. petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss10 on the grounds that (1) the complaint stated no cause of action since the parties have no contractual relationship. 1989 up to their respective retirement dates or the publication of DBM-CCC No. and (3) private respondents’ reliance on the De Jesus case was misplaced since said case involved the payment of a different benefit which was not integrated into the basic salaries of the employees concerned. the Supreme Court nullified DBM-CCC No. Cagayan. Charito A. On August 12. 1998. Cruz. On March 11. 105 specifying that the COLA. 10 rendered the integration of the subject benefits into their salaries ineffective. 4 or the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.7 On February 4. Floriza Sales Petitioner Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in the business of crop insurance. Nestor M. 10. 6758. Sevilla. amelioration allowance and equity pay previously granted to government employees shall be deemed included in the basic salary.

It noted that the allegations in the complaint for specific performance constituted a valid cause of action on which the court could render a valid judgment. and (3) that petitioner has refused to pay said benefits. 2003. the instant petition is DENIED due course and. Act No. Floriza Sales a contractual relationship between the parties since their claim for the subject benefits accrued when they were still petitioner’s employees.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. It held that where the allegations are sufficient but the veracity of the facts is assailed. accordingly. they are not barred by laches since they have not slept on their rights. it noted that private respondents made several demands on petitioner to pay the subject benefits but they were compelled to commence legal action only after petitioner refused to heed their demands. (2) that petitioner is bound by said law to pay the subject benefits. it held that private respondents have sufficiently alleged in their complaint facts constituting the elements of a cause of action: (1) that they are entitled to the subject benefits under Rep. The assailed order of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan (Tuguegarao. the motion to dismiss should be denied. It argued that public respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying its motion to dismiss despite the fact that (1) the complaint stated no cause of action since the parties have no contractual relationship. and (5) the De Jesus case did not invalidate the mandatory consolidation of allowances and compensation of government employees. it ruled that while the complaint is labeled as an action for specific performance thereby giving the impression that it is based on contract. In sum. only the facts alleged in the complaint and no other should be considered. particularly Section 1213 of Rep. it declared that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply since private respondents’ claim to the subject benefits involves a purely legal issue. the appellate court ruled that public respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss. for lack of merit. the trial court issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss. Act No. Dissatisfied. Thus.14 In the present petition. Third. petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari12 with the Court of Appeals. Branch 5) dated May 13. SO ORDERED. petitioner submits these issues for our consideration: 69 MAS . First. it is the body of the complaint and not its title which defines a cause of action. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE. Second. The appellate court dismissed the petition and thus affirmed that the complaint stated a cause of action. DISMISSED. a close reading of its allegations reveals that the action is based on law. (3) the claim was barred by laches. In determining the sufficiency of a cause of action. (4) the claim had already been paid in full since the subject benefits were already integrated into the basic salaries of private respondents. 6758. On May 13. Fourth. 6758. 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED. Hence. (2) private respondents failed to exhaust all administrative remedies.

] 6758. the complaint should have been dismissed outright for lack of or failure to state a cause of action. THERE WAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION. ABSENT A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. AMELIORATION ALLOWANCE AND EQUITY PAY IS MANDATED BY SECTION 12 OF R. THERE WAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FAILED AND OMITTED TO QUANTIFY THE AMOUNTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS. In this case. IV. THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES.A. THE CLAIM OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE DEEMED TO [HAVE] BEEN ABANDONED AND ARE NOW BARRED BY LACHES AFTER A PERIOD OF INACTION FOR MORE THAN 14 YEARS. V. to support the existence of any express contract with petitioner. THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS EXPRESSLY ADMITTED THAT THEIR COLA. VI. In that 70 MAS .WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty.15 Petitioner contends that a complaint for specific performance implies that the basis is a contractual relationship between the parties. 10 DUE TO NONPUBLICATION. II. much less produce any evidence. NOTWITHSTANDING THE DE JESUS RULING DECLARING THE NULLITY OF DBM CIRCULAR NO. Thus. Petitioner adds that private respondents failed to specify the amounts they are claiming although the same were capable of pecuniary estimation. THE ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION. [NO. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE IS NOT PURELY LEGAL AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT. 89-055 AND 90-002. private respondents failed to make any allegation. AMELIORATION ALLOWANCE AND EQUITY PAY WERE ALREADY PAID THRU SALARY INTEGRATION BY VIRTUE OF BOARD RESOLUTION NO. THE INTEGRATION OR CONSOLIDATION OF THE COLA. III. Floriza Sales I. ALSO.

e.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Private respondents counter that the present petition is improper since it seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on questions of law which is not covered by Rule 65. In any event. Moreover. Private respondents have sufficiently alleged in their complaint that (1) they are entitled to the subject benefits under Rep. Petitioner further argues that the issues in this case are not purely legal and private respondents have not exhausted all administrative remedies. they were able to avoid the payment of the correct docket fees. not from its caption. and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. Finally. Rep. amelioration allowance and equity pay in private respondents’ salaries remained valid notwithstanding the De Jesus ruling. Floriza Sales way. petitioner posits that private respondents’ claims are deemed to have been abandoned and barred by laches after a period of inaction for more than 14 years. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. The appellate court upheld the public respondent judge’s ruling that the complaint stated a cause of action. Although the complaint is labeled as an action for specific performance thereby giving the impression that it is based on contract.18 Moreover. 6758 and the integration of the COLA.16 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court requires the complaint to contain a plain. Further. some of which are defenses which should be threshed out during the trial proper. concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff bases his claim..net Notwithstanding petitioner’s formulation of six issues. private respondents insist that their complaint stated a cause of action since it sought to compel petitioner to pay their COLA. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements. (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right. Petitioner also argues that private respondents themselves admitted that their COLA.19 71 MAS . we only have to resolve one issue. Act No. Act No. of the material allegations.17 These elements are present in the case at bar. 6758. i. Section 1. whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred and abused its discretion when it affirmed public respondent judge’s order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss. the allegations therein reveal that the action is based on law. amelioration allowance and equity pay. the issues raised have already been passed upon by the appellate court. We have ruled that the cause of action is determined from the allegations of a complaint. Act No. i.e. not the veracity.1avvphi1. amelioration allowance and equity pay were already paid through salary integration. the validity of Rep. 6758. which is also a ground to dismiss their complaint. and (3) petitioner has refused to pay said benefits. the focus is on the sufficiency. namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created. The determination is confined to the four corners of the complaint and nowhere else.. (2) petitioner is bound by said law to pay the subject benefits.

2005 and the Resolution dated August 4. JR. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. TINGA Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. Floriza Sales We need not pass upon the other issues raised by petitioner since the same are matters best threshed out in a hearing on the merits. QUISUMBING Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice DANTE O. Reason dictates that the parties proceed with the trial where they can present their respective evidence. 72 MAS . No pronouncement as to costs. WHEREFORE. Everything considered. the Decision dated January 27. Cagayan. Associate Justice ARTURO D. LEONARDO A. Article VIII of the Constitution. VELASCO. 6123 and decide the said case with dispatch.R. there was no grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals when it affirmed public respondent judge’s order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss. I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 77773 are AFFIRMED. BRION Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. Branch 5. and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation. SO ORDERED. 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. LEONARDO A. is hereby DIRECTED to continue with the proceedings in Civil Case No. the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City. Accordingly. SP No.

95. PUNO Chief Justice Footnotes 1 Rollo. 6758 for Government-Owned and/or Controlled Corporations [GOCCs] and Financial Institutions [GFIs]. at 58-72. March 1. Such other additional compensation. 73 MAS . 11 Id. 9. Floriza Sales REYNATO S. 1-40 (Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of the Revised Compensation and Position Classification System Prescribed Under R. at 32-37. at 50-53.R. 57-57A. 7 Id. with Associate Justices Mario L. Mendoza concurring. at 34. clothing and laundry allowances.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 12 Id. Cruz. 1999. Vol. No. except for representation and transportation allowances. approved on August 21. pp. 10 Id. 8 Records. at 158. and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM. hazard pay. 294 SCRA 152. August 12. allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad. 3 Records. No. 6 G. 9 Id. pp. 1998. 12. 5 Official Gazette. 2 Id. effective on July 1. 1989). shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. at 17-22 and 23-25. 1989. Guariña III and Jose C. subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel. 13 Sec. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. – All allowances. 26-33. 109023. 4 An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and for Other Purposes.A. pp. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. whether in cash or in kind. 9-16. No. pp.

R. 2002.R. G. 394 SCRA 250. 146089. 16 Section 1. 148. 2006. Floriza Sales being received by incumbents only as of July 1. a plain. Gochan v. No. No. as the case may be. 139539.-Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form. 376 SCRA 144. 251. Flores. 74 MAS . 501 SCRA 248. 17 Ceroferr Realty Corporation v. 15 Id. December 13. If a defense relied on is based on law. 2002. 33. concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense. 372 SCRA 256. 19 Malicdem v. the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. See Malicdem v. Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government. September 8. 149906.R. Flores. G. 2001. 14 Rollo. 259. at 9. G. No.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. Gochan. 263-264. p. 18 Benito v.R. 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized. February 5. omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts. supra. No. Saquitan-Ruiz. G. Court of Appeals. In general. 151001. December 26.

However. WILDA ESPIRITU. TOMAS D. President Carlos P. JOSE TAGHOY and ALFONSO VALDEZ. Delgra. DOMINADOR SOLIS. From portions of the Municipality of Kapalong. PORFIRIO F. ROYO Vice Mayor. 1975 and July 10. at the instance of private respondent. and Municipal Treasurer JOSE AVENIDO. thru its Mayor. ANICETO SOLIS. and the March 17. PASTOR FERNANDEZ. HON. for petitioners. MOYA. GEORGE PEDRO JAIN. 475.R. MACROSQUE PIMENTEL. Vice-Mayor LEOPOLDO RECTO. LIDO E. it appears that no action was taken on the same.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. and (b) the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing respondent Judge to desist from taking cognizance of Civil Case No. J. Moya against the Municipality of Kapalong. WENCESLAO CASTRO. GR NO. recovery of collected taxes and damages. vs. 75 MAS . TOMAS. Private respondent then filed a complaint with the then Court of First Instance of Davao. Presiding Judge of Court of First Instance of Davao. and the MUNICIPALITY OF STO. PARAS. Jr. Floriza Sales MUNICIPALITY OF KAPALONG VS MOYA. MANZANO. presided over by herein public respondent Judge Felix L. Branch IX. to the Provincial Board of Davao for it to consider and decide. Municipal Councilors DOMINGO CAGADAS. No. 1975 Order of the then Court of First Instance of Davao denying the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. docketed therein as Civil Case No. Simeon N. respondents. 1975 Orders of the same Court denying petitioner's motions for reconsideration. thru its Mayor. for respondent Santo Tomas. Millan Jr. for settlement of the municipal boundary dispute.: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking: (a) the reversal (annulment) of the February 17. MONOY SALVADOR PASPE and AGUEDO ROTOL petitioners. 1988 MUNICIPALITY OF KAPALONG. Garcia created respondent Municipality of Santo Tomas. FELIX L. 475. For many years and on several occasions. this conflict of boundaries between the two municipalities was brought. L-41322 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila G. Martin V. DORONIO FELICULO ESTRADA. and the latter now asserts jurisdiction over eight (8) barrios of petitioner. L-41322 September 29. 475. Municipal Councilors VALERIANO CLARO. CARIDAD A.

. pp. which was opposed by private respondent (Ibid. 1975. WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 77-85). petitioner filed its Answer (Rollo. the same was denied by respondent Judge and so was the Second Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid. p. no cause of action. private respondent filed its Answer on October 28. pp. 1975. 1975... 44). 23-26). 6128. it submits that respondent Judge should have dismissed the case. 1417). after which respondent Judge. 2. petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the lower court and lack of legal personality of the Municipality of Santo Tomas (Ibid. in an Order dated July 10. pp. 1-10). On the ground of jurisdiction. Based on this premise. 1974. 242 SUPERSEDED REPUBLIC ACT NO. in an Order dated February 17. 1822). petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid. On March 3.. Petitioner raised four (4) issues. 37-40).. resolved to require the respondents to answer and to issue a temporary restraining order (Ibid.. Thus. there is no Municipality of Santo Tomas to speak of It has no right to assert. 3. to wit: 1. Petitioner contends that the ruling of this Court in Pelaez v. 1975. pp. Hence. 34-36). pp. pp.. the instant petition (Ibid. but in an Order dated March 17. no corporate existence at all. p.. The Second Division of this Court. 1975 (Ibid. (15 SCRA 569) is clear that the President has no power to create municipalities. 42-43). petitioner argues that the settlement of boundary disputes is administrative in nature and should originate in the political or administrative agencies of the 76 MAS . 1974.. WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE. pp. 1975 (Ibid. Floriza Sales On March 7. and private respondent on January 5. In compliance therewith. pp. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED. 1975 (Ibid. denied the motion to dismiss (Ibid. AND 4. and it must perforce remain part and parcel of Kapalong. 1974. Auditor General. pp. pp.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. 49). 65). WHETHER OR NOT THE MATTER OF SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY DISPUTE IS A POLITICAL QUESTION. On December 12. 1975. petitioner filed its reply to the opposition (Ibid. The instant petition is impressed with merit. The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Municipality of Santo Tomas legally exists. 1975 (Ibid.. p. Petitioner filed its Memorandum on December 10.. 27-30). 68-76). On November 22. in a Resolution dated September 10. In the Resolution dated November 3. 5357). pp.. the parties were required to file their respective memoranda (Ibid..

since further proceedings would be pointless. 73-74). Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson). as ruled in the Pelaez case supra.. the Orders of February 17. and Civil Case No. Sarmiento and Regalado. and as such.. Padilla. 1975 and July 10. concur. and not in the courts whose power is limited to judicial review on appropriate occasions (Ibid." Now then. Rule 3. 1975 of respondent Judge are SET ASIDE. The restraining order previously issued by this Court is made permanent. 475 is DISMISSED. PREMISES CONSIDERED. the petition is GRANTED. Since private respondent has no legal personality. JJ. it can not be a party to any civil action.WMSU LLB2A 2015 Civil Procedure Atty. respondent Judge should have dismissed the case. Floriza Sales government. 77 MAS . the President has no power to create a municipality. March 17. 1975. pp. Section 1 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that only "entities authorized by law may be patties in a civil action.