Manchester Development v.

CA, 149, SCRA 562

G.R. No. L-75919, EN BANC, May 7, 1987, GANCAYCO, J.

FACTS: A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development

Corporation against City Land Development Corporation. Manchester also alleged that City
Land forfeited the former’s tender of payment for a certain transaction thereby causing
damages to Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This amount was alleged in the BODY of
their Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of same complaint. Manchester paid a
docket fee of P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on the allegation of Manchester that
their action is primarily for specific performance, hence it is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Issue: Whether the amended complaint should be admitted. (No)

Ruling: The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A case is
deemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date of
filing in court. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint, it’s as if
there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint duly filed
which can be amended. So, any subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of the amended
complaint is void. Manchester’s defense that this case is primarily an action for specific
performance is not merited. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the
prayer of the complaint, this case is an action for damages and for specific performance. Hence,
it is capable of pecuniary estimation.