Syllabus Topic: 

Incapable/Capable Of Pecuniary Estimate

Case Title: Lu v. Lu Ym Sr. Resolution dated August 4, 2009; Resolution En Banc dated
February 15, 2011
G.R. No. and Date:  Ponente  
G.R. No. 153690, August 26, 2008 Nachura, J.: (2009)
Carpio-Morales, J.: (2011)
Petitioners  Respondents 
David Lu Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., Paterno Lu Ym, Jr., Victor
Lu Ym, Et Al. & Luym Development Corp

Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., Paterno Lu Ym, Jr., David Lu

Victor Lu Ym, John Lu Ym, Kelly Lu Ym,
And Ludo & Luym Development Corp.
The Hon. Court Of Appeals Of Cebu City
(Former Twentieth Division), David Lu, Rosa Go,
John Lu Ym And Ludo & Luym Silvano Ludo & Cl Corporation, Respondents.
Development Corporation,

I. Issue/s
Whether the value of the subject matter (600,000 shares of LLDC) is capable of pecuniary
estimation.

II. Paraphrased Ruling/Doctrine

The subject matter in the case is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

In the original complaint, the petitioners were not claiming to own the shares in litigation.
Furthermore, the petitioners did not claim to be entitled to be the transferees of the shares of
stock. The mention of the real value of the shares in the complaint was merely to describe the
discrepancy of the value of the shares and the price that it was sold, and as an emphasis in the
inequitable price at which the transfer was done.

In the case at bar, the main relief of the complaint filed by David Lu was the nullification of the
issuance of the 600,000 LLDC shares of stocks because they had been allegedly issued for less
than their value and was inequitable. David then sought the dissolution of the corporation and
thereafter, the appointment of receivers.

As judiciously discussed in the previous court resolution, the determination of when a subject
matter of an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation is known through the nature of the
principal action or the nature of the remedy sought after in the complaint filed. If the original
issue is something that is not recovery of a sum of money, and the money claim is only
incidental to the principal relief sought, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

The principal action, the nullification of the transfer of shares, the dissolution of the corporation
and the appointment of receivers are actions that do not have an action for recovery of a sum of
money. If there would be an award of a sum of money or real property during the pendency of
the case, it would only be incidental to the principal action. Therefore, the case before the RTC
was incapable of pecuniary estimation.
It has been judicially discussed that the nature of the principal action or remedy sought is of
utmost importance in ascertaining if the claim is considered to be of pecuniary estimation. If its
nature is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation, and thus, jurisdiction would depend on the amount of the claim.

However, when the principal remedy or action is not a right to recover a sum of money, or when
the money claim is only incidental to the relief sought, it has been determined that the subject of
litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation, and is exclusively in the jurisdiction of courts of
first instance.

III. Notes, if any (Optional)

The rationale of the rule is that second class cases, including the determination of damages,
demands an investigation or inquiries into other facets which the law has deemed to be more
within the competence of courts of first instance, 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, 1901).