Monday, May 31, 2021

Tender of excluded evidence

 

FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. G.R. No. 192024, July 1, 2015.

 

“Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

 

Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence. – If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.

 

The rule is that evidence formally offered by a party may be admitted or excluded by the court. If a party's offered documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request that it be attached to form part of the records of the case. If the excluded evidence is oral, he may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. These procedures are known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If an adverse judgment is eventually rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of the excluded evidence.”

 

PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, and VIVECA LIM YU, Respondents. G.R. No. 154115, November 29, 2005.

 

“Section 40, Rule 132 provides:

 

Sec.40. Tender of excluded evidence.—If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.

 

It is thus apparent that before tender of excluded evidence is made, the evidence must have been formally offered before the court. And before formal offer of evidence is made, the evidence must have been identified and presented before the court. While private respondent made a "Tender of Excluded Evidence," such is not the tender contemplated by the above-quoted rule, for obviously, the insurance policy and application were not formally offered much less presented before the trial court. At most, said "Tender of Excluded Evidence" was a manifestation of an undisputed fact that the subject documents were declared inadmissible by the trial court even before these were presented during trial. It was not the kind of plain, speedy and adequate remedy which private respondent could have resorted to instead of the petition for certiorari she filed before the Court of Appeals. It did not in any way render the said petition moot.”

 

Sunday, May 30, 2021

Appeal to RTC from MTC order dismissing case without trial; or for lack of jurisdiction.

 See -  G.R. No. 179457 (lawphil.net) 


WILFREDO DE VERA, EUFEMIO DE VERA, ROMEO MAPANAO, JR., ROBERTO VALDEZ, HIROHITO ALBERTO, APARICIO RAMIREZ, SR., ARMANDO DE VERA, MARIO DE VERA, RAMIL DE VERA, EVER ALMOGELA ALDA, JUANITO RIBERAL, represented by PACITA PASENA CONDE, ANACLETO PASCUA, ISIDRO RAMIREZ, represented by MARIANO BAINA, SPOUSES TRUDENCIO RAMIREZ and ESTARLITA HONRADA, ARNEL DE VERA, ISABELO MIRETTE, and ROLANDO DE VERA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES EUGENIO SANTIAGO, SR., and ESPERANZA H. SANTIAGO, SPOUSES RAMON CAMPOS and WARLITA SANTIAGO, SPOUSES ELIZABETH SANTIAGO and ALARIO MARQUEZ, SPOUSES EFRAEM SANTIAGO and GLORIA SANTIAGO, SPOUSES EUGENIO SANTIAGO, JR. and ALMA CAASI, JUPITER SANTIAGO, and JON-JON CAMOS, Respondents. G.R. No. 179457, June 22, 2015

 

“x x x.

In resolving the issue of whether the CA erred in annulling the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction, the Court is guided by the well-settled rule that "jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein."13

 

The jurisdictions of the RTC and the MTC over civil actions involving title to, or possession of real property or interest therein, like petitioners' action for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages, are distinctly set forth under Section 19 (2) and Section 33 (3) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended:

 

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.– Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

 

(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 the 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 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

 

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:

 

(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 (20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

 

A careful perusal of the allegations in their complaint for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages, would show that petitioners failed to indicate the assessed value of the subject real property. At any rate, based on the Tax Declarations14 attached to their complaint, the disputed land located in Bolinao, Pangasinan, has a total assessed value of 54,370.00. In line with the above-quoted statutory provisions, therefore, the RTC has jurisdiction over petitioners' civil action involving title to a real property outside Metro Manila with a total assessed value in excess of 20,000.00.

 

Thus, while the CA is correct in ruling that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case for reconveyance and recovery of ownership and possession of a land with an assessed value over 20,000.00, the same cannot be said of its ruling with respect to the RTC. Under Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, if the MTC tried a case on the merits despite having no jurisdiction over the subject matter, its decision may be reviewed on appeal by the RTC, to wit:

 

Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction.

 

If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

 

If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.15

 

In Serrano v. Spouses Gutierrez,16 the Court explained that the first paragraph of Section 8, Rule 40 contemplates an appeal from an order of dismissal issued without trial of the case on the merits, while the second paragraph deals with an appeal from an order of dismissal but the case was tried on the merits. Both paragraphs, however, involve the same ground for dismissal, i.e., lack of jurisdiction. Verily, the second paragraph refutes respondents' contention that Section 8, Rule 40 refers solely to cases where the MTC dismissed a case filed therein without a trial on the merits and an appeal to the RTC was taken from the order of dismissal. Therefore, the RTC correctly proceeded to decide the case on the merits despite the MTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

 

In contrast, the CA erroneously reversed and set aside the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, the RTC has appellate jurisdiction over the case and its decision should be deemed promulgated in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The RTC’s appellate jurisdiction, as contrasted to its original jurisdiction, is provided in Section 22 of B.P. Blg.129, as amended, thus:

 

SECTION 22. Appellate jurisdiction.–Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or

 

The above-quoted provision vests upon the RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Clearly then, the amount involved is immaterial for purposes of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction; all cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved.17 Hence, the CA grossly erred in nullifying the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction, and in declaring as moot and academic the factual issues raised in the respondents' petition for review when it should have proceeded to review on appeal the factual findings of the RTC. This is because the RTC not only has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitioners' action for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages, but also appellate jurisdiction over the MTC Decision itself.

 

On a final note, it bears emphasis that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. This restriction of the review to questions of law has been institutionalized in Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the second sentence of which provides that the petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. Indeed, in the exercise of its power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and, subject to certain exceptions, it does not normally undertake the reexamination of the evidence presented by the parties during trial.18 In certain exceptional cases, however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues, viz.:

 

(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

 

(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

 

(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;

 

(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

 

(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;

 

(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

 

(g) When the CA’s findings are contrary to those by the trial court;

 

(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

 

(i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent;

 

(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or

 

(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.19

 

Not one of those exceptions was shown to obtain in the instant case as would justify a liberal interpretation of procedural rules and a determination of factual issues by the Court. A perusal of petitioners' sole assigned error would readily show that the only issue raised is one of law. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants.20 Undeniably, the issue whether the CA erred in annulling the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law. The resolution of such issue rests solely on what the law [B.P. Blg. 129, as amended] provides on the given set of circumstances as alleged in petitioners' complaint for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages. Meanwhile, the factual questions necessitating a review of the evidence presented by the parties are raised in the respondents' petition for review filed with the CA. An issue is factual when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation.21 Without doubt, the following issues duly raised before the CA but it failed to resolve are all questions of fact which are beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45:

 

I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 54, ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN, ERRED IN ORDERING OCT (FP) NO. 15820 IN THE NAME OF JUPITER SANTIAGO, OCT (FP) NO. 15819 IN THE NAME OF EFRAEM SANTIAGO AND GLORIA SANTIAGO; OCT NO. 15765 IN THE NAME OF SPS. ELIZABETH SANTIAGO AND ALMARIO MARQUEZ; OCT (FP) 15755 IN THE NAME OF SPS. EUGENIO SANTIAGO, JR. AND ALMACAASI; OCT (FP) NO 15754 IN THE NAME OF JON-JON SANTIAGO AND OCT (FP) NO. 15818 IN THE NAME OF RAMON CAMPOS, NULL AND VOID, AND ORDERING THEM TO RECONVEY THE AREA INDICATED IN THEIR FREE PATENTS TITLES TO RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE RTC CIVIL CASE NO. A-2750) AND FOR RESPONDENTS TO DIVIDE AMONG THEMSELVES SAID PROPERTY;

 

II – THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT FREE PATENT TITLES OF HEREIN PETITIONERS WERE ACQUIRED THRU FRAUD, HENCE, NULL AND VOID;

 

III – THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF TAX DECLARATIONS OF RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFFS IN CIVIL CASE NO. 939-MTC, BOLINAO, PANGASINAN) OVER THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION AND DID NOT GIVE DUE CREDENCE OF (SIC) THE TAX DECLARATION OF PETITIONERS;

 

IV - THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY RESPONDENTS DAMAGES AS SPECIFIED IN SAID DECISION;

 

V - THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REVERSING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF BOLINAO, PANGASINAN AND DECIDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CASE (CIVIL CASE NO. 939-MTC, BOLINAO, PANGASINAN.22

 

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court no longer finds any necessity to delve into the parties' contentions relative to the principles of indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of Torrens Titles, and immunity of such titles from collateral attack. However, a remand of the case to the CA is necessary in order to fully resolve all the above-quoted factual issues raised in the respondents' petition for review.

 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated May 29, 2007 and its Resolution dated August 22, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 79769 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for the prompt resolution of the factual issues raised in the respondents' petition for review of the Decision dated June 14, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City, Pangasinan, Branch 64.

X x x.”

 


Jurisdictional amount; for purposes of filing fees vs. for purposes of trial

 See - G.R. No. 221815 (lawphil.net)


GLYNNA FORONDA-CRYSTAL, Petitioner vs. ANIANA LAWAS SON, Respondent. G.R. No. 221815, November 29, 2017.

 

“x x x.

 

On the Issue of Jurisdiction

 

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case.16 In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter.17 It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.18

 

What is relevant in this case, therefore, is the delineation provided for by law which separates the jurisdictions of the second level courts—the Regional Trial Courts—and the first level courts—the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC), and Municipal Trial Courts in the Cities (MTCC).

 

This can be easily ascertained through a reading of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691.19

 

According to this law, in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, the RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction where the assessed value of the property exceeds 20,000.00 or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds 50,000.00.20 For those below the foregoing threshold amounts, exclusive jurisdiction lies with the MeTC, MTC, MCTC, or MTCC.21

 

For a full discourse on the resolution of the present petition, emphasis must be given on the assessed values22 —not the fair market values—of the real properties concerned.

 

According to the case of Heirs of Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso,23 the law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed. Heirs of Concha, Sr. averred this definitive ruling by tracing the history of the The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended. It said:

 

The original text of Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 as well as its forerunner, Section 44(b) of R.A. 296, as amended, gave the RTCs x x x exclusive original jurisdiction. x x x Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 or one involving title to property under Section 19(2).

 

The distinction between the two classes became crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994 which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts. x x x. Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real property or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the first and second level courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier administration of justice."24 (Emphasis, underscoring and formatting supplied, citations omitted)

 

Time and again, this Court has continuously upheld Heirs of Concha, Sr.'s ruling on this provision of law.25 In fact, in Malana, et al. v. Tappa, et al.26 the Court said that "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."27

 

To determine the assessed value, which would in turn determine the court with appropriate jurisdiction, an examination of the allegations in the complaint is necessary. It is a hornbook doctrine that the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction.28 According to the case of Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, et al.,29 only these facts can be the basis of the court's competence to take cognizance of a case, and that one cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at the trial, to determine the nature of the action thereby initiated.30

 

It is not a surprise, therefore, that a failure to allege the assessed value of a real property in the complaint would result to a dismissal of the case. This is because absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. Indeed, the courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land.31 This is the same ratio put forth by the Court in the case of Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, et al.,32 where the case was dismissed partly on the basis of the following:

 

The complaint did not contain any such allegation on the assessed value of the property. There is no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC had jurisdiction over the action of petitioners. Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be determined whether it is the RTC or the MTC which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners' action.33 (Citations omitted)

 

In Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals,34 the Court had no qualms in dismissing the case for failing to allege the assessed value of the subject property. Similar to Spouses Cruz,35 Quinagoran36 held that: "Considering that the respondents failed to allege in their complaint the assessed value of the subject property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the motion to dismiss. Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the CA erred in affirming the RTC."

 

This is not to say, however, that there is no room for a liberal interpretation of this rule. In Tumpag v. Tumpag,37 the Court, through Justice Brion, provided for an instance when an exception to the strict application could be allowed. It said:

 

Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction. There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party's substantial right.38

 

In that case, there was also no allegation of the assessed value of the property. However, the Court pointed out that the facts contained in the Declaration of Real Property, which was attached to the complaint, could have facially resolved the question on jurisdiction and would have rendered the lengthy litigation on that very point unnecessary.39 In essence, the Court said that the failure to allege the real property's assessed value in the complaint would not be fatal if, in the documents annexed to the complaint, an allegation of the assessed value could be found.

 

A reading of the quoted cases would reveal a pattern which would invariably guide both the bench and the bar in similar situations. Based on the foregoing, the rule on determining the assessed value of a real property, insofar as the identification of the jurisdiction of the first and second level courts is concerned, would be two-tiered:

 

First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property as alleged in the complaint; and

 

Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the assessed value of the property, while not alleged in the complaint, could still be identified through a facial examination of the documents already attached to the complaint.

 

Indeed, it is by adopting this two-tiered rule that the Court could dispense with a catena of cases specifically dealing with issues concerning jurisdiction over real properties.

 

In upholding these afore-quoted rule, however, the Court is not unmindful of the cases of Barangay Piapi v. Talip40 and Trayvilla v. Sejas41 where the market value of the property, instead of the assessed value thereof, was used by the Court as basis for determining jurisdiction.

 

In Barangay Piapi,42 the complaint did not allege the assessed value of the subject property. What it alleged was the market value thereof. The Court held that, in the absence of an allegation of assessed value in the complaint, the Court shall consider the alleged market value to determine jurisdiction.

 

Notably, this case referred to Section 7(b), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which deals with Legal Fees, to justify its reliance on the market value. It said:

 

The Rule requires that "the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof, shall be alleged by the claimant." It bears reiterating that what determines jurisdiction is the allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Petitioners' complaint is for reconveyance of a parcel of land. Considering that their action involves the title to or interest in real property, they should have alleged therein its assessed value. However, they only specified the market value or estimated value, which is 15,000.00. Pursuant to the provision of Section 33 (3) quoted earlier, it is the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Padada-Kiblawan, Davao del Sur, not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over the case.43 (Italics in the original, and emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

 

However, the rule alluded to above, while originally containing the sentence: "In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees," has already been deleted through an amendment by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC. As it currently stands, Section 7 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court reads:

 

Section 7 Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.—

 

a) For filing an action or a permissive OR COMPULSORY counter-claim, CROSS-CLAIM, or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing a third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-in-intervention, if the total sum claimed, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS, PENALTIES, SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases involving 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, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY THE CLAIMANT, is: x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 

Two things must be said of this: first, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court concerns the amount of the prescribed filing and docket fees, the payment of which bestows upon the courts the jurisdiction to entertain the pleadings to be filed;44 and second, the latest iteration of the same provision already deleted the phrase "estimated value thereof," such that the determination of the amount of prescribed filing and docket fees are now based on the following: (a) 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; or (b) the stated value of the real or personal property in litigation as alleged by the claimant.

 

A reading of the discourse on this would indicate that the jurisdiction referred to above does not deal with the delineation of the jurisdictions of the first and second level courts, but with the acquisition of jurisdiction by the courts through the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees.

 

This is the same tenor of the Court's decision in Trayvilla. In that case, where no assessed value was likewise alleged in the complaint, the Court determined jurisdiction by considering the actual amount by which the property was purchased and as written in the Amended Complaint. The Court stated that:

 

However, the CA failed to consider that in determining jurisdiction, it could rely on the declaration made in the Amended Complaint that the property is valued at 6,000,00. The handwritten document sued upon and the pleadings indicate that the property was purchased by petitioners for the price of 6,000.00. For purposes of filing the civil case against respondents, this amount should be the stated value of the property in the absence of a current tax declaration or zonal valuation of the BIR.45 (Emphasis supplied)

 

But then again, like the discussion on Barangay Piapi above, Trayvilla was one which dealt with the payment of the required filing and docket fees. The crux of the case was the acquisition of jurisdiction by payment of docket fees, and not the delineation of the jurisdiction of the first and second level courts. In fact, Trayvilla interchangeably used the terms "assessed value" and "market value" in a manner that does not even recognize a difference.

 

Like Barangay Piapi, therefore, Spouses Trayvilla must not be read in the context of jurisdiction of first and second level courts as contemplated in the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended,46 where the assessed values of the properties are required. These cases must perforce be read in the context of the determination of the actual amount of prescribed filing and docket fees provided for in Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

 

Having laid out the essential rules in determining the jurisdiction of the first and second level courts for civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, the Court now shifts focus to the specific circumstances that surround the current case.

 

In here, the respondent failed to allege in her complaint the assessed value of the subject property. Rather, what she included therein was an allegation of its market value amounting to 200,000.00.47 In the course of the trial, the petitioner asserted that the assessed value of the property as stated in the tax declaration was merely 1,030.00, and therefore the RTC lacked jurisdiction.

 

The question thus posed before this Court was whether or not the RTC should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and in the affirmative, whether or not the RTC decision should be rendered void for being issued without jurisdiction.

 

As discussed above, settled is the requirement that the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, required the allegation of the real property's assessed value in the complaint. That the complaint in the present case did not aver the assessed value of the property is a violation of the law, and generally would be dismissed because the court which would exercise jurisdiction over the case could not be identified.

 

However, a liberal interpretation of this law, as opined by the Court in Tumpag,48 would necessitate an examination of the documents annexed to the complaint. In this instance, the complaint referred to Tax Declaration No. 16408A, attached therein as Annex "B," which naturally would contain the assessed value of the property. A perusal thereof would reveal that the property was valued at 2,826.00.

 

On this basis, it is clear that it is the MTC, and not the RTC, that has jurisdiction over the case. The RTC should have upheld its Order dated November 8, 2006 which dismissed the same. Consequently, the decision that it rendered is null and void.

 

In the case of Maslag v. Monzon,49 the Court had occasion to rule that an order issued by a court declaring that it has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case when under the law it has none cannot likewise be given effect. It amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced. Since the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, already apportioned the jurisdiction of the MTC and the RTC in cases involving title to property, neither the courts nor the petitioner could alter or disregard the same.

 

In yet another case, Diona v. Balangue,50 the Court ruled that void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. No legal rights can emanate from a resolution that is null and void. As said by the Court in Cañero v. University of the Philippines:51

 

A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to enforce. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there was no judgment.52

 

Thus, considering the foregoing, it would be proper for the Court to immediately dismiss this case without prejudice to the parties' filing of a new one before the MTC that has jurisdiction over the subject property. Consequently, the other issues raised by the petitioner need not be discussed further.

 

X x x.”

 


Jurisdictional amount in real actions is based on assessed value of real property

 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.”