LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

G.R. No. 181622 November 20, 2013

GENESIS INVESTMENT, INC., CEBU JAYA REALTY INC., and SPOUSES RHODORA
and LAMBERT LIM,Petitioners

vs.
HEIRS of CEFERINO EBARASABAL

As cited by the CA, this Court, in the case of Singson v. Isabela Sawmill,16 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. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction
is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the
amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence
of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the
subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable by
courts of first instance [now Regional Trial Courts].17

G.R. No. 212690* February 20, 2017

SPOUSES ROMEO PAJARES and IDA T. PAJARES, Petitioners

vs.

REMARKABLE LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING, represented by ARCHEMEDES G.

SOLIS, Respondent

Breach of contract may give rise to an action for specific performance or rescission of
contract.1 It may also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages filed pursuant to
Art. 1170 of the Civil Code.2 In the specific performance and rescission of contract cases,
the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence jurisdiction belongs to
the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In the case for damages, however, the court that has
jurisdiction depends upon the total amount of the damages claimed.

` Specific performance is ''[t]he remedy of requiring exact performance of a

contract in the specific form in which it was made, or according to the precise terms agreed
upon. [It is t]he actual accomplishment of a contract by a party bound to fulfill it."25
Rescission of contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, is a
remedy available to the obligee when the obligor cannot comply with what is incumbent
upon him.26 It is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party who violates the
reciprocity between them. Rescission may also refer to a remedy granted by law to the
contracting parties and sometimes even to third persons in order to secure reparation of
damages caused them by a valid contract; by means of restoration of things to their
condition in which they were prior to the celebration of the contract.27

In a line of cases, this Court 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. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money,
the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal trial courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the
claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts
1of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).28

Breach of contract may be the cause of action in a complaint for specific performance
or rescission of contract, both of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore,
cognizable by the RTC. However, as will be discussed below, breach of contract may also be
the cause of action in a complaint for damages.

G.R. No. 208232 March 10, 2014

SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA, namely: EPIFANIA G. BAUTISTA and

ZOEY G. BAUTISTA, Petitioners

vs

FRANCISCO LINDO

The petition is meritorious.

Jurisdiction of courts is granted by the Constitution and pertinent laws.

Jurisdiction of RTCs, as may be relevant to the instant petition, is provided in Sec. 19 of BP

129, which reads:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.―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;

2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds
Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

Settled jurisprudence considers some civil actions as incapable of pecuniary estimation, viz:

1. Actions for specific performance;

2. Actions for support which will require the determination of the civil status;

3. The right to support of the plaintiff;

4. Those for the annulment of decisions of lower courts;

5. Those for the rescission or reformation of contracts;13

6. Interpretation of a contractual stipulation.14

LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY DOCKET

FEES

G.R. No. 146594 June 10, 2002

REBECCA T. CABUTIHAN, petitioner,

vs.
LANDCENTER CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

We hold that the trial court and respondent used technicalities to avoid the resolution
of the case and to trifle with the law. True, Section 5, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
requires that the assessed value of the real estate, subject of an action, should be
considered in computing the filing fees. But the Court has already clarified that the Rule
does not apply to an action for specific performance,28 which is classified as an action not
capable of pecuniary estimation.29

"Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the
docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period."

REAL ACTION and PERSONAL ACTION

G.R. No. 127692 March 10, 2004

FORTUNATO GOMEZ and AURORA GOMEZ, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, ADOLFO TROCINO and MARIANO TROCINO, respondents.

In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks
the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an
action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property.

G.R. No. 192649 March 9, 2011

HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.

R-II BUILDERS INC., and NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondents.

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a
case.37 In addition to being conferred by the Constitution and the law,38 the rule is settled
that a court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations
in the complaint,39 the law in effect when the action is filed,40 and the character of the
relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims
asserted.41 Consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court which
provides that the prescribed fees shall be paid in full "upon the filing of the pleading or other
application which initiates an action or proceeding", the well-entrenched rule is to the effect
that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing
and docket fees.42