See - G.R. No. 181303 (lawphil.net)
CARMEN
DANAO MALANA, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, EVELYN DANAO, FERMINA DANAO, LETICIA DANAO
and LEONORA DANAO, the last two are represented herein by their
Attorney-in-Fact, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, Petitioners, vs. BENIGNO TAPPA, JERRY
REYNA, SATURNINO CAMBRI and SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND MARIA LIGUTAN, Respondents. G.R.
No. 18130, September 17, 2009.
“x x x.
An action
for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a
will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by
a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought
under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity
of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties’ rights
or duties thereunder.21
Petitions
for declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The RTC
correctly made a distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The first
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, describes the general
circumstances in which a person may file a petition for declaratory relief, to
wit:
Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or
any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof,
bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any
question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his
rights or duties, thereunder. (Emphasis ours.)
As the
afore-quoted provision states, a petition for declaratory relief under the first
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 may be brought before the appropriate RTC.
Section 1,
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court further provides in its second paragraph that:
An action
for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove
clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil
Code, may be brought under this Rule. (Emphasis ours.)
The second
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court specifically refers to
(1) an action for the reformation of an instrument, recognized under Articles
1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code; (2) an action to quiet title, authorized by
Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and (3) an action to consolidate
ownership required by Article 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with a right to
repurchase. These three remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief
because they also result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the
litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into
effect.22
To determine
which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in the second
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be
read together with those of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended.
It is important
to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically
require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly
uses the word "may" – that an action for quieting of title "may
be brought under [the] Rule" on petitions for declaratory relief, and a
person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief "may x x x bring
an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court." The use of the word
"may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive
and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.23
In contrast,
the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended, uses the word "shall" and explicitly requires the MTC to
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve
title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not
exceed ₱20,000.00, thus:
Section 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,
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, in civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: x x x (Emphasis ours.)
As found by
the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax
Declaration No. 02-48386 is only ₱410.00; therefore, petitioners’ Complaint involving title to and
possession of the said property is within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the MTC, not the RTC.
Furthermore,
an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual
breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder.24 Since the
purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed,
or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance
therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it
may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or
contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a
practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the state where
another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for a form of
action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of
obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs.25
Where the
law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action
for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the
action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an action for
declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed
before the institution of the action.26
In the
present case, petitioners’ Complaint for quieting of title was filed after
petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate the subject
property. In fact, said Complaint was filed only subsequent to the latter’s
express claim of ownership over the subject property before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners’ title.
Since
petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already been deprived of the
possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an
accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory
relief. An accion publiciana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed
one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful
withholding of possession of the realty. An accion reivindicatoria is a suit
that has for its object one’s recovery of possession over the real property as
owner.27
Petitioners’
Complaint contained sufficient allegations for an accion reivindicatoria.
Jurisdiction over such an action would depend on the value of the property
involved. Given that the subject property herein is valued only at ₱410.00, then the MTC, not the RTC,
has jurisdiction over an action to recover the same. The RTC, therefore, did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing, without prejudice,
petitioners’ Complaint in Civil Case No. 6868 for lack of jurisdiction.
As for the
RTC dismissing petitioners’ Complaint motu proprio, the following
pronouncements of the Court in Laresma v. Abellana28 proves instructive:
It is
axiomatic that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are
determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time
the action was commenced. Jurisdiction of the tribunal over the subject matter
or nature of an action is conferred only by law and not by the consent or
waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over
an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence,
acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. If the court has no
jurisdiction over the nature of an action, it may dismiss the same ex mero motu
or motu proprio. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Since the
RTC, in dismissing petitioners’ Complaint, acted in complete accord with law
and jurisprudence, it cannot be said to have done so with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An act of a court or
tribunal may only be considered to have been committed in grave abuse of
discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to
a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.29 No such
circumstances exist herein as to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
X x x.”
CARMEN
DANAO MALANA, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, EVELYN DANAO, FERMINA DANAO, LETICIA DANAO
and LEONORA DANAO, the last two are represented herein by their
Attorney-in-Fact, MARIA DANAO ACORDA, Petitioners, vs. BENIGNO TAPPA, JERRY
REYNA, SATURNINO CAMBRI and SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND MARIA LIGUTAN, Respondents. G.R.
No. 18130, September 17, 2009.
“x x x.
An action
for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a
will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by
a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought
under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity
of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties’ rights
or duties thereunder.21
Petitions
for declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The RTC
correctly made a distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The first
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, describes the general
circumstances in which a person may file a petition for declaratory relief, to
wit:
Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or
any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof,
bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any
question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his
rights or duties, thereunder. (Emphasis ours.)
As the
afore-quoted provision states, a petition for declaratory relief under the first
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 may be brought before the appropriate RTC.
Section 1,
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court further provides in its second paragraph that:
An action
for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove
clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil
Code, may be brought under this Rule. (Emphasis ours.)
The second
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court specifically refers to
(1) an action for the reformation of an instrument, recognized under Articles
1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code; (2) an action to quiet title, authorized by
Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and (3) an action to consolidate
ownership required by Article 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with a right to
repurchase. These three remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief
because they also result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the
litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into
effect.22
To determine
which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in the second
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be
read together with those of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended.
It is important
to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically
require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly
uses the word "may" – that an action for quieting of title "may
be brought under [the] Rule" on petitions for declaratory relief, and a
person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief "may x x x bring
an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court." The use of the word
"may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive
and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.23
In contrast,
the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended, uses the word "shall" and explicitly requires the MTC to
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve
title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not
exceed ₱20,000.00, thus:
Section 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,
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, in civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: x x x (Emphasis ours.)
As found by
the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax
Declaration No. 02-48386 is only ₱410.00; therefore, petitioners’ Complaint involving title to and
possession of the said property is within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the MTC, not the RTC.
Furthermore,
an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual
breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder.24 Since the
purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed,
or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance
therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it
may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or
contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a
practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the state where
another relief is immediately available; and supplies the need for a form of
action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of
obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs.25
Where the
law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action
for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the
action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an action for
declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed
before the institution of the action.26
In the
present case, petitioners’ Complaint for quieting of title was filed after
petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate the subject
property. In fact, said Complaint was filed only subsequent to the latter’s
express claim of ownership over the subject property before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners’ title.
Since
petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already been deprived of the
possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an
accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory
relief. An accion publiciana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed
one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful
withholding of possession of the realty. An accion reivindicatoria is a suit
that has for its object one’s recovery of possession over the real property as
owner.271avvphi1
Petitioners’
Complaint contained sufficient allegations for an accion reivindicatoria.
Jurisdiction over such an action would depend on the value of the property
involved. Given that the subject property herein is valued only at ₱410.00, then the MTC, not the RTC,
has jurisdiction over an action to recover the same. The RTC, therefore, did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing, without prejudice,
petitioners’ Complaint in Civil Case No. 6868 for lack of jurisdiction.
As for the
RTC dismissing petitioners’ Complaint motu proprio, the following
pronouncements of the Court in Laresma v. Abellana28 proves instructive:
It is
axiomatic that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are
determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time
the action was commenced. Jurisdiction of the tribunal over the subject matter
or nature of an action is conferred only by law and not by the consent or
waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over
an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence,
acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. If the court has no
jurisdiction over the nature of an action, it may dismiss the same ex mero motu
or motu proprio. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Since the
RTC, in dismissing petitioners’ Complaint, acted in complete accord with law
and jurisprudence, it cannot be said to have done so with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An act of a court or
tribunal may only be considered to have been committed in grave abuse of
discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to
a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.29 No such
circumstances exist herein as to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
X x x.”
