Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No.

160384

Facts:

Hilario filed a complaint with the RTC against Salvador alleging

that they were the co-owners of the parcel of land where
Salvador constructed his house without their knowledge and
refused to vacate despite their demands.

Salvodor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of

lack of jurisdiction.  He contended that the complaint did not
state the assessed value of the property, which determines the
jurisdiction of the court.

Hilario maintained that the RTC had jurisdiction since their action
was an accion reinvindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation; thus, regardless of the assessed value of the subject
property, exclusive jurisdiction fell within the said court. Also, in
their opposition to Salvador's motion to dismiss, they mentioned
the increase in the assessed value of the land in the amount of
P3.5 million. Moreover, they maintained that their action was also
one for damages exceeding P20,000.00, over which the RTC had
exclusive jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not the action filed by Hilario was an accion

reinvindicatoria.

Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint filed
byHilario.

Held:

The action filed by Hilario did not involve a claim of ownership

over the property. They prayed that Salvador vacate the property
and restore possession to them.  Hence, it was an accion
publiciana, or one for the recovery of possession of the real
property.  It was not an aaccion reinvindicatoria or a suit for the
recovery of possession over the real property as owner.

The nature of the action and which court has original and
exclusive jurisdiction 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.

The complaint did not contain an allegation stating the assessed

value of the property.  Absent any allegation in the complaint of
the assessed value of the property, it could not thus be
determined whether the RTC or the MTC had original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the action.

The law also explicitly excluded from the determination of the

jurisdictional amount the demand for interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs.

Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action, all the
proceedings therein, including the decision of the RTC, were null
and void.