Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.

Civil Procedure Case Digest

2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

TACAY V. RTC OF TAGUM

FACTS:

Godofredo Pineda filed 3 actions for recovery of possession against 3 defendants Noel,
Panes, and Tacay.

All complaints alleged the same facts that (1) Pineda was the owner of a parcel of
land of 790 sqm. and evidenced by TCT (2) and previous owner had allowed the
defendants occupy portions of the land by mere tolerance (3) Pineda, having
himself the need to use property, demanded the defendants to vacate and pay
reasonable rents but has been refused.

The complaints prayed that (1) Pineda be declared as owner (2) defendants vacate
the property (3) That each of them ordered to pay: (1) P2000 as monthly rents; (2)
Actual Damages, as proven; (3) Moral and Nominal damages as the court may fix; (4)
P30,000 as attorneys fees, and representation fees of P5000 per day of appearance.

Motion to Dismiss was filed by each defendant alleging that it did not specify the
amounts of actual, nominal and exemplary damages, nor the assessed value of
the property that being bars the determination of the RTCs jurisdiction over the case.

Motion to Dismiss were denied but the claims for damages were expunged for failure to
specify amount.

The defendants then filed a joint petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and TRO
against RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the amount of damages claimed and the assessed value of the property
are relevant in the determination of the courts jurisdiction in a case for recovery of
possession of property.

RULING:

The petition was dismissed because it fails to demonstrate any grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the respondent judges in rendering the orders complained of or,
for that matter, the existence of any proper cause for the issuance of the writ of
mandamus. On the contrary, the orders appear to have correctly applied the law to the
admitted facts.

It is true that the complaints do not state the amounts being claimed as actual, moral
and nominal damages. It is also true, however, that the actions are not basically for the

Page 1 of 2
 Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.
Civil Procedure Case Digest
2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

recovery of sums of money. They are principally for recovery of possession of real
property, in the nature of accion publiciana.

Determinative of the courts jurisdiction in a recovery of possession of property is the

nature of the action (one of accion publicaina) and not the value of the property, it may
be commenced and prosecuted without an accompanying claim for actual, nominal or
exemplary damages and such action would fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the RTC. The court acquired jurisdiction upon the filing of the complaint and payment
of the prescribed docket fees.

Page 2 of 2