Quinagoran v. CA, G.R. No. 155179, Aug.

24, 2007

Facts:

The heirs of Juan dela Cruz, represented by Senen dela Cruz, filed on October 27, 1994 a
Complaint for Recovery of Portion of Registered Land with Compensation and Damages against
Victorino Quinagoran before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch XI of Tuao, Cagayan.

Petitioner Quinarogan started occupying a house on the north-west portion of the property,
covering 400 sq m, by tolerance of respondents. Then in 1993, respondents asked petitioner to remove
the house as they planned to construct a commercial building on the property however, petitioner
refused, claiming ownership over the lot. Respondents then prayed for the reconveyance and surrender
of the disputed 400 sq m, more or less, and to be paid the amount of ₱5,000.00 monthly until the
property is vacated, attorney's fees in the amount of ₱20,000.00, costs of suit and other reliefs and
remedies just and equitable.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691. The RTC denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss in an Order dated
November 11, 1999.

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the RTC.

Petitioner then went to the CA on a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking the
annulment of the Orders of the RTC. On May 27, 2002, the CA dismissed the petitioner's action and
affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on August 28, 2002 for lack of merit.

Petitioner's contention:

Petitioner claims that under R.A. No. 7691 the jurisdiction of the MTC, Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC), and Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) was expanded to include exclusive original
jurisdiction over civil actions when the assessed value of the property does not exceed ₱20,000.00
outside Metro Manila and ₱50,000.00 within Metro Manila. He likewise avers that it is an indispensable
requirement that the complaint should allege the assessed value of the property involved.

Respondent's contention:

Respondents contend that the petition is without factual and legal bases, and the contested
decision of the CA is entirely in accordance with law and nowhere in the body of their complaint before
the RTC does it state that the assessed value of the property is below ₱20,000.00.

Issues:

1. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession regardless of the value of the
property involved?
2. Whether the complaint must allege the assessed value of the property involved.

Ruling:

1. No, the RTC has no jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession regardless of the value of the
property involved.

The doctrine on which the RTC anchored its denial of petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, as affirmed
by the CA -- that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the regional trial courts
regardless of the value of the property -- no longer holds true. As things now stand, a distinction must
be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below ₱20,000.00, if outside Metro
Manila; and ₱50,000.00, if within.

The Court has also declared that all cases involving title to or possession of real property with an
assessed value of less than ₱20,000.00 if outside Metro Manila, falls under the original jurisdiction of the
municipal trial court.

In Atuel v. Valdez the Court likewise expressly stated that:

Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction. Specifically, the regional
trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real
property." However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed ₱50,000.00 in
Metro Manila, and ₱20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction
over actions to recover possession of real property.

2. Yes, the complaint must allege the assessed value of the property involved.

The Court has already held that a complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property
subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the
action. This is because the nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the same is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by
the plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein.

In this case, nowhere in said complaint was the assessed value of the subject property ever
mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC has exclusive
jurisdiction over the action of the respondents. Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the
assessed value of the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed
or market value of the land.

Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the defendant or even upon
agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the parties. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature
of the action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the
court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost
entirely on the defendant.