See - G.R. No. 196874 (lawphil.net)
The Heirs of
the Late Spouses ALEJANDRO RAMIRO and FELICISIMA LLAMADA, namely; HENRY L.
RAMIRO; MERLYN R. TAGUBA; MARLON L. RAMIRO; MARIDEL R. SANTELLA, WILMA L.
RAMIRO; VILMA R. CIELO and CAROLYN R. CORDERO, Petitioners vs. Spouses ELEODORO and VERNA BA CARON,
Respondents. G.R. No. 196874, February 6, 2019.
“x x x.
Section 19
of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, provides that the RTC shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction on the following actions:
Sec. 19.
Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction.
(1) In all
civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
(2) In all
civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
x x x x
Meanwhile,
Section 33 of the same law provides the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
first level courts, viz.:
Sec. 33.
Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
x x x x
(3)
Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots.
Settled is
the rule that 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.20 For instance, when
the main relief sought is specific performance, the action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. When the
action, on the other hand, primarily involves title to, or possession of land,
the court which has exclusive original jurisdiction over the same is determined
by the assessed value of the property.
Here,
petitioners argue against the CA's view that the action is under the RTC's
jurisdiction because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. They contend that
the main thrust of respondents' complaint before the RTC is the recovery of
possession of the property. Thus, the primary purpose of all of respondents'
alternative causes of action involves title to or possession of real property.
This is allegedly evident from respondents' amended complaint which seeks,
among others, to cancel OCT No. P-12524 covering the property, to have a new
title issued in their name, and to place respondents in peaceful and
undisturbed possession of the property. In view of these allegations,
petitioners posit that the complaint should be filed with the court having
jurisdiction based on the assessed value of the property. In this case, however,
there was no effort on the part of respondents to allege the assessed value of
the property. 21
Spouses
Bacaron counter that the case record shows that the main relief prayed for in
the amended complaint is one for the declaration of validity and effectivity of
the Deed of Sale and specific performance or, in the alternative, that
petitioners be ordered and directed to execute the deed or instrument of
conveyance and transfer of the property in respondents' favor. They argue that
based on existing jurisprudence, the Court has recognized actions involving the
legality of conveyances as actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. Likewise,
actions for specific performance are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
RTC. Hence, in this case, since the main reliefs prayed for by respondents are
the declaration of validity of the Deed of Sale and specific performance, the
RTC has jurisdiction over the case.22
We agree
with petitioners.
Respondents'
amended complaint pertinently narrates the following:
3. That the
above-named defendants are all surviving heirs of the late spouses [Alejandro]
Raqmiro (sic) and Felicisima Llamada-Ramiro;
4. That the
late Alejandro Ramiro, father of the defendants, is the registered owner of a
parcel of land situated in Gov. Generoso, Davao Oriental, consisting of an area
of about Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine (48,639) square meters,
more or less, and embraced and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. P-12524; said property is mainly used and operated as a fish pond, with
some portions of the said parcel of land being devoted to and planted with
coconut trees;
(Said parcel
of land formed part of spouses Ramiro's [spouses Alejendro (sic) Ramiro's and
Felicisima Llamada's] conjugal properties- as registered owner Alejandro Ramiro
is referred-to and acknowledged in the property's title as married to
Felicisima Llamda') (sic);
x x x x
5. That
sometime in 1991, said spouses Alejandro Ramiro and Felicisima Llamada-Ramiro
sold the abovementioned property unto the plaintiffs herein, as may be shown
and evidenced by a Deed of Sale duly executed by the spouses, dated October 20,
1991;
x x x x
11.a. That
just sometime after the aforesaid sale of the subject property, plaintiffs took
over the possession thereof;
11. b. That
likewise, since the subject property was earlier mortgaged by the Ramiro
spouses unto the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Plaintiffs caused
the payment unto the bank the amount of about Four Hundred Thirty Thousand
Pesos and Hundred Fifty Pesos (P430, 150.00) for the redemption of the property
from the Development Bank of the Philippines;
12. That
Alejandro Ramiro passed away sometime in 1996 or thereabout; That Felicisima
Llamada on the other hand died later in 1997 or sometime thereabout;
13. That
thereafter (sic), sometime on the month of June of 1998, or thereabout, the
above-named defendants, led by defendant Henry Ramiro, unlawfully and
coercively took over the possession of the subject property without any
justifiable cause whatsoever, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs, arrogating
unto themselves the supposed ownership of the property;
14. And
despite several demands, defendants unjustifiably refused to return unto the
plaintiffs the possession thereof, thus causing unwarranted damage and injuries
unto the latter;
x x x x23
(Underscoring in the original.)
In the same
vein, the following are the reliefs sought by respondents in their amended
complaint:
a.) that a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued enjoining and prohibiting the
defendants from exercising, doing and/or otherwise causing to be done all acts,
deeds and activities which may be inimical to the plaintiffs' claims, rights
and interest as lawful owners thereof - more specifically (but not limited to
), the actual operation of the fishpond by the defendants, and defendants'
gathering and harvesting of coconuts and other products found within the
property; directing the defendants to return unto the plaintiffs the possession
of the subject property; and enjoining and prohibiting said defendants from
further effecting and causing whatever acts of disturbances in contravention of
plaintiffs['] peaceful possession of the property;
b.) that
Writs of Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions likewise be issued
in plaintiffs' favor directing and/or providing the same wise (as stated in the
foregoing);
c.) that
after hearing, the said Injunctions be made permanent;
d.) that
after the fact and verity of the subject property's sale (in plaintiffs' favor)
shall have been proved and established in the course of the proceedings of the
above-entitled case, the validity and effectivity of said sale be categorically
declared and upheld: Or otherwise, defendants be ordered and directed to
execute the proper deed or instrument of conveyance and transfer of the subject
property in plaintiffs' favor;
e.) that
[the] Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P12524 be ordered cancelled and
in lieu thereof, another title be accordingly issued in the name of the
plaintiffs; and
f.) that the
plaintiffs be ordered placed in a peaceful and undisturbed possession over the
property.
g.) that
defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's
fees and P1,200.00 as appearance fees of counsel per hearing;
h.) that
defendants be made to pay plaintiffs the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages
as well as exemplary damages in the amount to be fixed by this Honorable Court.
All other
reliefs in plaintiffs' favor, as may be deemed by this Honorable Court as just
and equitable under the premises, are herein likewise prayed for. 24 (Emphasis
supplied; underscoring in the original.)
It is clear
from the foregoing that while respondents claim that their amended complaint
before the RTC is denominated as one for the declaration of validity of the
Deed of Sale and for specific performance, the averments in their amended
complaint and the character of the reliefs sought therein reveal that the
action primarily involves title to or possession of real property. An action
"involving title to real property" means that the plaintiffs cause of
action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal
rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the
same. Title is the "legal link between (1) a person who owns property and
(2) the property itself. "25
The ultimate
relief sought by respondents is for the recovery of the property through the
enforcement of its sale in their favor by the late spouses Ramiro. Their other
causes of action for the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of
a new one in their name, as well as' for injunction and damages, are merely
incidental to the recovery of the property. 26 Before any of the other reliefs
respondents prayed for in their complaint can be granted, the issue of who
between them and petitioners has the valid title to the lot must first be
determined. 27
Similarly in
Gochan v. Gochan,28 we ruled that where a complaint is entitled as one for
specific performance but nonetheless prays for the issuance of a deed of sale
for a parcel of land, its primary objective and nature is one to recover the
parcel of land itself and is, thus, deemed a real action. Accordingly, under
these circumstances, the court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the case is determined by the assessed value of the subject property. 29
Here,
respondents neither alleged the assessed value of the property. The Court
cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands. Thus, absent
any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it
cannot be determined which between the RTC or the Municipal Trial Court had
original and exclusive jurisdiction over respondents' action. Consequently, the
complaint filed before the RTC should be dismissed.30
Furthermore,
it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. 31 In resolving
the issue of whether or not the correct amount of docket fees were paid, it is
also necessary to determine the true nature of the complaint. 32 Having settled
that the action instituted by respondents is a real action and not one incapable
of pecuniary estimation, the basis for determining the correct docket fees
shall, therefore, be the assessed value of the property, or the estimated value
thereof as alleged by the claimant. 33 As already discussed, however,
respondents did not allege the assessed value of the property in their amended
complaint. They also did not allege its estimated value. As a result, the
correct docket fees could not have been computed and paid by respondents and
the RTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case.34 All the proceedings before it are consequently null and void.
In light of
all the foregoing, we see no further need to discuss the other issues raised by
petitioners.
X x x.”
The Heirs of
the Late Spouses ALEJANDRO RAMIRO and FELICISIMA LLAMADA, namely; HENRY L.
RAMIRO; MERLYN R. TAGUBA; MARLON L. RAMIRO; MARIDEL R. SANTELLA, WILMA L.
RAMIRO; VILMA R. CIELO and CAROLYN R. CORDERO, Petitioners vs. Spouses ELEODORO and VERNA BA CARON,
Respondents. G.R. No. 196874, February 6, 2019.
“x x x.
Section 19
of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, provides that the RTC shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction on the following actions:
Sec. 19.
Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction.
(1) In all
civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
(2) In all
civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
x x x x
Meanwhile,
Section 33 of the same law provides the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
first level courts, viz.:
Sec. 33.
Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
x x x x
(3)
Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots.
Settled is
the rule that 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.20 For instance, when
the main relief sought is specific performance, the action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. When the
action, on the other hand, primarily involves title to, or possession of land,
the court which has exclusive original jurisdiction over the same is determined
by the assessed value of the property.
Here,
petitioners argue against the CA's view that the action is under the RTC's
jurisdiction because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. They contend that
the main thrust of respondents' complaint before the RTC is the recovery of
possession of the property. Thus, the primary purpose of all of respondents'
alternative causes of action involves title to or possession of real property.
This is allegedly evident from respondents' amended complaint which seeks,
among others, to cancel OCT No. P-12524 covering the property, to have a new
title issued in their name, and to place respondents in peaceful and
undisturbed possession of the property. In view of these allegations,
petitioners posit that the complaint should be filed with the court having
jurisdiction based on the assessed value of the property. In this case, however,
there was no effort on the part of respondents to allege the assessed value of
the property. 21
Spouses
Bacaron counter that the case record shows that the main relief prayed for in
the amended complaint is one for the declaration of validity and effectivity of
the Deed of Sale and specific performance or, in the alternative, that
petitioners be ordered and directed to execute the deed or instrument of
conveyance and transfer of the property in respondents' favor. They argue that
based on existing jurisprudence, the Court has recognized actions involving the
legality of conveyances as actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. Likewise,
actions for specific performance are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
RTC. Hence, in this case, since the main reliefs prayed for by respondents are
the declaration of validity of the Deed of Sale and specific performance, the
RTC has jurisdiction over the case.22
We agree
with petitioners.
Respondents'
amended complaint pertinently narrates the following:
3. That the
above-named defendants are all surviving heirs of the late spouses [Alejandro]
Raqmiro (sic) and Felicisima Llamada-Ramiro;
4. That the
late Alejandro Ramiro, father of the defendants, is the registered owner of a
parcel of land situated in Gov. Generoso, Davao Oriental, consisting of an area
of about Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine (48,639) square meters,
more or less, and embraced and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. P-12524; said property is mainly used and operated as a fish pond, with
some portions of the said parcel of land being devoted to and planted with
coconut trees;
(Said parcel
of land formed part of spouses Ramiro's [spouses Alejendro (sic) Ramiro's and
Felicisima Llamada's] conjugal properties- as registered owner Alejandro Ramiro
is referred-to and acknowledged in the property's title as married to
Felicisima Llamda') (sic);
x x x x
5. That
sometime in 1991, said spouses Alejandro Ramiro and Felicisima Llamada-Ramiro
sold the abovementioned property unto the plaintiffs herein, as may be shown
and evidenced by a Deed of Sale duly executed by the spouses, dated October 20,
1991;
x x x x
11.a. That
just sometime after the aforesaid sale of the subject property, plaintiffs took
over the possession thereof;
11. b. That
likewise, since the subject property was earlier mortgaged by the Ramiro
spouses unto the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Plaintiffs caused
the payment unto the bank the amount of about Four Hundred Thirty Thousand
Pesos and Hundred Fifty Pesos (P430, 150.00) for the redemption of the property
from the Development Bank of the Philippines;
12. That
Alejandro Ramiro passed away sometime in 1996 or thereabout; That Felicisima
Llamada on the other hand died later in 1997 or sometime thereabout;
13. That
thereafter (sic), sometime on the month of June of 1998, or thereabout, the
above-named defendants, led by defendant Henry Ramiro, unlawfully and
coercively took over the possession of the subject property without any
justifiable cause whatsoever, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs, arrogating
unto themselves the supposed ownership of the property;
14. And
despite several demands, defendants unjustifiably refused to return unto the
plaintiffs the possession thereof, thus causing unwarranted damage and injuries
unto the latter;
x x x x23
(Underscoring in the original.)
In the same
vein, the following are the reliefs sought by respondents in their amended
complaint:
a.) that a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued enjoining and prohibiting the
defendants from exercising, doing and/or otherwise causing to be done all acts,
deeds and activities which may be inimical to the plaintiffs' claims, rights
and interest as lawful owners thereof - more specifically (but not limited to
), the actual operation of the fishpond by the defendants, and defendants'
gathering and harvesting of coconuts and other products found within the
property; directing the defendants to return unto the plaintiffs the possession
of the subject property; and enjoining and prohibiting said defendants from
further effecting and causing whatever acts of disturbances in contravention of
plaintiffs['] peaceful possession of the property;
b.) that
Writs of Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions likewise be issued
in plaintiffs' favor directing and/or providing the same wise (as stated in the
foregoing);
c.) that
after hearing, the said Injunctions be made permanent;
d.) that
after the fact and verity of the subject property's sale (in plaintiffs' favor)
shall have been proved and established in the course of the proceedings of the
above-entitled case, the validity and effectivity of said sale be categorically
declared and upheld: Or otherwise, defendants be ordered and directed to
execute the proper deed or instrument of conveyance and transfer of the subject
property in plaintiffs' favor;
e.) that
[the] Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P12524 be ordered cancelled and
in lieu thereof, another title be accordingly issued in the name of the
plaintiffs; and
f.) that the
plaintiffs be ordered placed in a peaceful and undisturbed possession over the
property.
g.) that
defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's
fees and P1,200.00 as appearance fees of counsel per hearing;
h.) that
defendants be made to pay plaintiffs the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages
as well as exemplary damages in the amount to be fixed by this Honorable Court.
All other
reliefs in plaintiffs' favor, as may be deemed by this Honorable Court as just
and equitable under the premises, are herein likewise prayed for. 24 (Emphasis
supplied; underscoring in the original.)
It is clear
from the foregoing that while respondents claim that their amended complaint
before the RTC is denominated as one for the declaration of validity of the
Deed of Sale and for specific performance, the averments in their amended
complaint and the character of the reliefs sought therein reveal that the
action primarily involves title to or possession of real property. An action
"involving title to real property" means that the plaintiffs cause of
action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal
rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the
same. Title is the "legal link between (1) a person who owns property and
(2) the property itself. "25
The ultimate
relief sought by respondents is for the recovery of the property through the
enforcement of its sale in their favor by the late spouses Ramiro. Their other
causes of action for the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of
a new one in their name, as well as' for injunction and damages, are merely
incidental to the recovery of the property. 26 Before any of the other reliefs
respondents prayed for in their complaint can be granted, the issue of who
between them and petitioners has the valid title to the lot must first be
determined. 27
Similarly in
Gochan v. Gochan,28 we ruled that where a complaint is entitled as one for
specific performance but nonetheless prays for the issuance of a deed of sale
for a parcel of land, its primary objective and nature is one to recover the
parcel of land itself and is, thus, deemed a real action. Accordingly, under
these circumstances, the court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the case is determined by the assessed value of the subject property. 29
Here,
respondents neither alleged the assessed value of the property. The Court
cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands. Thus, absent
any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it
cannot be determined which between the RTC or the Municipal Trial Court had
original and exclusive jurisdiction over respondents' action. Consequently, the
complaint filed before the RTC should be dismissed.30
Furthermore,
it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. 31 In resolving
the issue of whether or not the correct amount of docket fees were paid, it is
also necessary to determine the true nature of the complaint. 32 Having settled
that the action instituted by respondents is a real action and not one incapable
of pecuniary estimation, the basis for determining the correct docket fees
shall, therefore, be the assessed value of the property, or the estimated value
thereof as alleged by the claimant. 33 As already discussed, however,
respondents did not allege the assessed value of the property in their amended
complaint. They also did not allege its estimated value. As a result, the
correct docket fees could not have been computed and paid by respondents and
the RTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case.34 All the proceedings before it are consequently null and void.
In light of
all the foregoing, we see no further need to discuss the other issues raised by
petitioners.
X x x.”
