CIVPRO cases (MARCH 06, 2023)

1.SPOUSES CLAUDIO and CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA vs. BERNARDO SEJAS and JUVY
PAGLINAWAN GR No. 204970, FEB 1, 2016

Summary: Assailed in this Petition fro Review on Certiorari1 are the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals
(CA):1) November 29, 2011 Decision2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 02315 which granted respondents’ Petition for Certiorari
and nullified the September 3, 20073 and February 21, 20084 Orders of Branch 18 of Regional Trial Court (RTC),
9th Judicial Region, Pagadian City in Civil Case No. 4633-2K5; and 2) November 19, 2012 Resolution 5 denying the
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Factual Antecedents:

In 2005, Petitioners Claudio and Carmencita Trayvilla instituted before the RTC Civil Case No. 4633-2K5 against
respondent Bernardo Sejas (Sejas). In their Complaint 6 for specific performance ad damages, petitioners claimed
among others that Sejas was the registered owner of a 434-square meter parcel of land in Tukuran, Zamboanga del
Sur covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8,337 7 (TCT T-8,337); that by virtue of a private handwritten
document,8 Sejas sold said parcel of land to them in 1982; that thereafter, they took possession of the land and
constructed a house thereon; that they resided in said house and continued to reside therein; that Sejas later
reasserted his ownership over said land

and was thus guilty of fraud and deceit in so doing; and that they caused the annotation of an adverse claim. They
prayed that Sejas be ordered to execute a final deed of sale over the property and transfer the same to them, and that
they be awarded the sum of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P1,500.00 per court appearance of counsel.

In an Amended Complaint,9 this time for specific performance, reconveyance, and damages, petitioners impleaded
respondent Juvy Paglinawan (Paglinawan) as additional defendant, claiming that Sejas subsequently sold the subject
property to her, after which she caused the cancellation of TCT T-8,337 and the issuance of a new title – TCT T-
46,627 – in her name. Petitioners prayed that Sejas be ordered to execute a final deed of sale in their favor and
transfer the property to them; that Paglinawan’s TCT T-6,627 be canceled and the property be reconveyed to them;
and that they be awarded P50,000.00 in moral damages, in addition to the P30,000.00 attorney’s fees and P1,500.00
per court appearance of counsel originally prayed for in the Complaint.

However, the additional docket fees for the moral damages prayed for in the Amended Complaint were not paid. 10
Likewise, for the additional causes of action, no docket fees were charged and paid Respondents moved for
dismissal of the case, claiming lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and prescription. The RTC denied the
motion in a September 3, 2007 Order.11

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 12 arguing that petitioners’ case was not for specific performance but
was in reality a real action or one involving title to and possession of real property, in which case the value of the
property should be alleged in the complaint in order that the proper filing fee may be computed and paid; that since
the value of the land was not alleged in the Amended Complaint, the proper filing fee was not paid, and for this
reason the case should be dismissed; and that petitioners’ cause of action is barred by prescription since the 10- year
period to sue upon the handwritten contract–counted from their purchase of the land in 1982 – had already lapsed
when they filed the case in 2005. However, in a February 21, 2008 Order, 13 the RTC denied the motion, stating
among others that petitioners’ case is not a real action but indeed one for specific performance and thus one which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.

https://studylib.net/doc/25805935/civ-pro
ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA ruled correctly when it dismissed the complaint by reason of alleged
non-payment of the correct docket’s fees due to its failure to allege the fair market value or the
stated value of the subject property in the amended complaint.

RULING:

Yes, the CA is correct.

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.

Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, which became effective on
16 August 2004, the paragraph in Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, pertaining
specifically to the basis for the computation of docket fees for real actions was deleted. Instead,
Section 7(1) of Rule 141, as amended, provides that 'in cases involving real property, the FAIR
MARKET value of the REAL property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION
OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICH IS HIGHER,
OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION shall be the basis
for the computation of the docket fees

Unfortunately, private respondents never alleged in their Amended Complaint, much less in the
prayer portion thereot, the fair market value of the subject res as stated in the Tax Declaration
or current zonal valuation ot the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which is higher, or it there is
none, the stated value thereot, to serve as basis for the receiving clerk in computing and
arriving at the proper amount of tiling tee due thereon. In the absence ot such allegation, it
cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the petitioners action. There is therefore no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC
has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the private respondents.

The RT never acquired jurisdiction, hence, its act of taking cognizance of the subject Complaint
was tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave
abuse of discretion is defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent
to lack of jurisdiction.

2.HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO vs. AMELITA BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO GR No. 210504,
Jan. 24, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/507513057/Heirs-of-Alfonso-Yusingco-v-Busilak
 Case Summary
T O P I C :   E x e c u ti o n , s a ti s f a c ti o n , a n d e ff e c t o f j u d g m e n t s ( R u l e
39)

Case revolves around the subject properties owned by the Yusinaco. These properties were
initially occupied by a firs group of people, which led Yusinaco to file different cases of
ACCION REIVINDICATORIA . During the pendency of those cases Busilak and companv.
entered and occupied different parts of the same subject properties. After this first cases
were decided in favor of Yusingco, which led them to file this case against Busilak.

The MTCC and the RTC ruled in favor of Yusingco, while the CA, reversed the ruling stating
that Busilak was not a party in the first cases thus judgment rendered in the 1st case,
cannot be deemed binding in the current case. since in is an accion in personam. The SC
however ruled in favor of Yusingco, stating that although an ACCION REIVINDICATORIA is an
accion in personam, and shall only be binding towards the parties involved, there is an
exception to this general rule One of which. is when the non-party to an ejectment suit is a
Trespasser. squatter or agent of the defendant the fraudulent occupies the property.

ISSUE: WIN the final and executory decisions rendered in a previous accion reivindicatoria,
finding petitioners to be the lawful owners of the subject properties. are binding upon
respondents

RULING:
3.transferee pendente lite;
4.sublessee;
5.co-lessee; or
6.member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.

In this case, similar to the discussion of the MTCC, the SC deems that the respondents are mere
intruders or trespassers who do not have a right to possess the subject lots. the CA erred in
ruling that the Decisions of the RTC and CA on the suit for accion reivindicatoria filed by the
petitioners in the first cases against the parties other than Busilak and company, are not binding
on the latter.

 Respondents, being trespassers on the subject lots are bound by the said judgments,
which find petitioners to be entitled to the possession of the subject lots as owners
thereof.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The July 31, 2013 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04500 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Omnibus Judgment of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Surigao City, dated February 25, 2011, is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
 3.Spouses Huguete vs Spouses Embudo, GR No. 149554, July 1, 2003

Case Doctrine:
1. 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 the 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 exclusively by the RTC.

FACTS:

On March 2, 2000, petitioner spouses Jorge and Yolanda Huguete instituted against respondent
spouses Teofredo Amarillo Embudo and Marites Huguete-Embudo a complaint for "Annulment
of TCT No. 99694, Tax Declaration No. 46493, and Deed of Sale, Partition, Damages and
Attorncy's Fees," of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7.

On March 15, 2001, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, arguing that the total assessed value of the
subject land was only P15,000.00 which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court, pursuant to Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7691.

Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss alleging that the subject matter of the
action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, is cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court, as provided by Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, as amended. The trial court dismissed the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction.

RULING: No. The petition lacks merit.

Petitioners maintain that the complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is for the
annulment of deed of sale and partition and is thus incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Respondents, on the other hand, insist that the action is one for annulment of title and since
the assessed value of the property as stated in the complaint is P15,000.00, it falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.

While actions under Section. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the
law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the
assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or
P50,000.00, if located elsewhere.

In the case at bar, the principal purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint was to secure title
to the 50-square meter portion of the property which they purchased from respondents.

4. Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738; GR No. 119347, March 17, 19
5. GENESIS INVESTMENT, INC. vs. HEIRS of CEFERINO EBARASABAL et. al, GR. No. 181622,
Nov. 23, 2013