EULALIA RUSSELL et al vs. HON. AUGUSTINE A. VESTILG.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999Kapunan, J.:

FACTS:Petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents denominated DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION with the RTC of Mandaue City. The complaint alleged that petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land situated in Cebu and containing an area of 56,977.40 square meters, more or less. The land was previously owned by the Spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Upon the latters death, the property was inherited by the legal heirs, herein petitioners and private respondents. The lot had remained undivided until petitioners discovered a public document denominated DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEEDOF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT OF PARTITION already executed. By virtue of the deed, respondents divided the property among themselves without including petitioners. Thus, the complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs.

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the subject land is Php 5,000 which, under BP 129, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MCTC of Compostela. Petitioners filed an opposition to the motion, stating that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation.

The respondent judge issued an order granting the motion to dismiss. A motion for reconsideration was filed, contending that their action is not one for recovery of title to or possession of the land but an action to annul a document or declare it null and void. The motion, however, was denied; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to entertain the civil case.

HELD:YES. The complaint filed before the RTC is one incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within its jurisdiction. In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).

In the case, the subject matter of the complaint is annulment of a document denominated as DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION. The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the document in which private respondents declared themselves as the only heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document above described. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.

PETITION GRANTED.

HEIRS OF GENEROSO SEBE vs. HEIRS OF VERONICO SEVILLA and TECHNOLOGY AND LIVELIHOOD RESOURCE CENTERG.R. No. 174497 October 12, 2009Abad, J.:

FACTS:Plaintiff spouses Generoso and Aurelia Sebe filed with the RTC of Dipolog City a complaint against defendants Veronico Sevilla and Technology and Livelihood Resources Center for Annulment of Document, Reconveyance and Recovery of Possession of two lots which had a total assessed value of Php9,910.00 plus damages. The Sebes claimed that they owned the subject lots but, through fraud, Sevilla got them to sign documents conveying the lots to him. In his answer, Sevilla insisted that he bought the lots from the Sebes in a regular manner.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, considering that the ultimate relief that the Sebes sought was the reconveyance of title and possession over two lots that had a total assessed value of less than Php20,000. It concluded that the Sebes should have filed their action with the MTC of Dipolog City. The Sebes filed a motion for reconsideration, pointing out that the RTC mistakenly classified their action as one involving title to or possession of real property when in fact it was a case for the annulment of the documents and titles that Sevilla got. The RTC, however, denied it; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not the Sebess action involving the two lots valued at less than Php20,000 falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

HELD:NO. Whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a particular action is determined by the plaintiffs allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts. Before, both real actions and actions incapable of pecuniary estimation fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, but with the amendment of BP 129, the power of the RTC to hear actions involving title to, or possession of, real property or any interest in it now covers only real properties with assessed value in excess of Php20,000.

The present action is not about the declaration of the nullity of the documents or the reconveyance to the Sebes of the certificates of title covering the two lots. These would merely follow after the trial court shall have first resolved the issue of which between the contending parties is the lawful owner of such lots. Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their property by making them sign documents of conveyance rather than just a deed of real mortgage. The action is about ascertaining which of these parties is the lawful owner of the subject lots.

Here, the total assessed value of the two lots is Php9,910.00. This amount does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold value of Php20,000 fixed by law. The other damages that the Sebes claim are merely incidental to their main action and are excluded in the computation of the jurisdictional amount. Thus, the MTC of Dipolog has jurisdiction over the case.

PETITION DISMISSED.

VICTORINO QUINAGORAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE HEIRS OF JUAN DELA CRUZG.R. No. 155179Austria-Martinez, J.:

FACTS:The heirs of Juan dela Cruz, represented by Senen dela Cruz, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Portion of Registered Land with Compensation and Damages against petitioner. They alleged that they are the co-owners of a parcel of land located at Cagayan which they inherited from the late Juan dela Cruz. In the mid-70s, petitioner started occupying a house on the north-west portion of the property by tolerance of respondents. Respondents asked petitioner to remove the house as they planned to construct a commercial building on the property, but petitioner refused, claiming ownership over the lot.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case under R.A. No. 7691. He argued that since the 346 sq m lot he owns adjacent to the contested property has an assessed value of Php1,730.00, the assessed value would not exceed Php20,000; thus, the MTC has jurisdiction over the case.

The RTC denied petitioners motion to dismiss, ruling that the present action partakes of the nature of accion publiciana, and jurisdiction over said action lies with the RTC, regardless of the value of the property. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but it was denied by the RTC. On appeal, the CA dismissed petitioners action and affirmed the decision of the RTC. His motion for reconsideration was also denied; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession regardless of the value of the property involved.

HELD:NO. A distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below Php20,000, if outside Metro Manila, and Php50,000, if within. R.A. No. 7691 which amended B.P. 129 was already in effect when respondents filed their complaint. It provides that the RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction 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 Php20,000 or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Php50,000. It also provides that the MTC, MeTC and MCTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over the same where the assessed value of the property does not exceed Php20,000 or in Metro Manila, where such value does not exceed Php50,000.

In the case, no assessed value was alleged in respondents complaint. There is therefore no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the respondents. 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 petitioners action. Thus, the RTC seriously erred in denying petitioners motion to dismiss.

PETITION GRANTED.

ESPERANZA SUPAPO et al vs. SPOUSES ROBERTO AND SUSAN DE JESUS et al.G.R. No. 198356 April 20,2015Brion, J.:

FACTS:The Spouses Supapo filed a complaint for accion publiciana against Roberto and Susan de Jesus with the MeTC of Caloocan City. The complaint sought to compel the respondents to vacate a piece of land located in Novaliches, Quezon City, and registered under petitioners name. The land has an assessed value of Php39,980.00. Petitioners did not reside on the lot but made sure to visit at least twice a year.

During one of their visits, they saw two houses built on the lot without their knowledge and permission. They learned that respondents occupied both houses. They demanded the surrender of the lot by bringing the dispute before the appropriate Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Lupon issued a certificate to file action for failure of the parties to settle amicably.

The Spouses Supapo filed a criminal case against the respondents for violating PD No. 772 (Anti-Squatting Law). The trial court convicted the respondents. On appeal, the CA dismissed the case because Congress enacted R.A. No. 8368 repealing the Anti-Squatting Law. Notwithstanding the dismissal, the Spouses Supapo moved for the execution of the respondents civil liability, praying that the latter vacate the subject lot. The RTC granted the motion and issued the writ of execution. Respondents moved to quash it but the RTC denied their motion. They filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. The CA granted it and ruled that with the repeal of the Anti-Squatting Law, the criminal and civil liabilities of respondents were extinguished, but it also said that recourse may be had in court by filing the proper action for recovery of possession. Thus, the Spouses Supapo filed the complaint for accion publiciana.

After filing their Answer, the respondents moved to set their affirmative defenses for preliminary hearing and argued that there is another action pending between the same parties, the complaint is barred by statute of limitations, and the petitioners cause of action is barred by prior judgment.

The MeTC denied the motion to set the affirmative defenses for preliminary hearing. The RTC granted the petition for certiorari of respondents because the action has prescribed and accion publiciana falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. It likewise denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioners. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision; hence, this petition.

ISSUES:1. Whether or not the MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction.2. Whether or not the cause of action has prescribed.3. Whether or not the complaint for accion publiciana is barred by res judicata.

HELD:1. YES. Under BP 129, the jurisdiction of the RTC over actions involving title to or possession of real property is plenary. However, R.A. No. 7691 granted the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear actions where the assessed value of the property does not exceed Php20,000 ot Php50,000 if the property is located in Metro Manila. Jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property is now determined by its assessed value. It is its fair market value multiplied by the assessment level.

In the present case, the Spouses Supapo alleged that the assessed value of the subject lot located in Metro Manila is Php39,980. Thus, the MeTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint for accion publiciana.

2. NO. Lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Even it be supposed that the holders of the Torrens Title were aware of the other persons occupation of the property, regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated.

3. NO. Res judicata is not present in the case because:a. First, there is no identity of parties. The criminal complaint was prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. The accion publiciana was filed in the name of the Spouses Supapo.b. There is no identity of subject matter. The criminal case involves the prosecution of a crime under the Anti-Squatting Law while the accion publiciana is an action to recover possession of the subject property.c. There is no identity of causes of action. The People of the Philippines filed the case to protect governmental interests, while the spouses filed the accion publiciana to protect their proprietary interests.

PETITION GRANTED.

HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA et al vs. SPOUSES GREGORIO J. LUMOCSO et al.G.R. No. 158121 December 12, 2007Puno, C.J.:

FACTS:Petitioners claim to be the rightful owners of three lots situated in Dipolog City under CA 141. Respondents are the patent holders and registered owners of the subject lots.

Petitioners claim that their parents acquired by homestead a 24-hectare parcel of land situated in Dipolog City. Since 1931, the spouses Concha preserved the forest in this land including the excess four hectares untitled forest land, and they possessed this excess land continuously, publicly, notoriously, adversely, peacefully, in good faith, and in concept of owner. On November 12, 1996, respondents, by force, intimidation and stealth forcibly entered the premises and disposed of 21, 22, and 6 trees for the three lots, respectively. Thus, Valeriano Sr. and his children, herein petitioners, filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with Damages against Spouses Gregorio Lumocso and Bienvenida Guya. They sought to annul the free patent and the corresponding OCT issued in the latters name for one of the lots. Therafter, two separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were filed by petitioners against Cristita Lumocso Vda. De Daan and Spouses Jacinto Lumocso and Balbina T. Lumocso for the other two lots.

Respondents moved to dismiss their respective cases on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC, failure to state causes of action for reconveyance, prescription, and waiver, abandonment, laches, and estoppel. Petitioners opposed contending that the instant cases involve actions the subject matters of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, these cases fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. They also contended that they have two main causes of action: for reconveyance and for recovery of the value of the trees felled by respondents. Hence, the totality of the claims must be considered which, if computed, allegedly falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.

The RTC denied the motions to dismiss. Respondents filed a Joint motion for reconsideration but it was denied. On appeal, the CA reversed the order of the RTC because an action for reconveyance based on fraud prescribes in ten years, and the complaints involved titles issued for at least 22 years prior to their filing; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases.

HELD:NO. The instant cases involve actions for reconveyance. The applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of BP 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691. In the cases at bar, the subject lots are situated in Dipolog City and their assessed values are less than Php20,000. Hence, the MTC clearly has jurisdiction over the instant cases.

Petitioners contention that the value of the trees cut in the subject properties constitutes any interest therein (in the subject properties) that should be computed in addition to the respective assessed values of the subject properties is unavailing. Section 19(2) of BP 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691, is clear that the RTC shall exercise jurisdiction 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 Php20,000 or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Php50,000. In determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed.

CA DECISION AFFIRMED.

ARACELI J. CABRERA et al vs. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO et al.G.R. No. 172293 August 28, 2013Del Castillo, J.:

FACTS:Respondents father, Atty. Lorenzo C. Gella executed a private document confirming that he has appointed Severino Cabrera, husband of Araceli and father of Arnel as administrator of all his real properties located in Antique. When Severino died, petitioners, with the consent of respondents, took over the administration of the properties. Respondent likewise instructed them to look for buyers of the properties, allegedly promising them a commission of 5% of the total purchase price of the said properties as compensation. Petitioners introduced Erlinda Veegas to the respondents who agreed to have the said properties developed by Erlindas company. However, respondents appointed Erlinda as the new administratrix of the properties and terminated petitioners services. Petitioners then demanded for their 5% commission to no avail. Hence, they filed a complaint for Collection of Agents Compensation, Commission and Damages against respondents before the RTC.

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss based on the following grounds: a) lack of jurisdiction, b) failure to state a cause of action and c) lack of legal capacity of petitioners to sue in behalf of the other heirs of Severino. They argued that for the RTC outside Metro Manila to acquire jurisdiction, the amount demanded must exceed Php200,000, pursuant to R.A. No. 7691. Since the market value of the lot is Php3,550,072, 5% thereof is only Php177,506.60, or less than the said jurisdictional amount; thus, the RTC has no jurisdiction. Their right also remained inchoate because the lot has not yet been sold.

The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC, concluding that the Complaint is mainly for collection of sum of money and not one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation since petitioners are claiming 5% of the total purchase price of the lot; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

HELD:NO. The complaint is neither one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation nor involves interest in a real property. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought must be consulted because the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint.

In the case, the complaint is not incapable of pecuniary estimation because the main purpose of petitioners is to collect the commission allegedly promised by respondents should they be able to sell the lot, as well as the compensation for the services they rendered. It also cannot involve an interest in a real property because the compensation sought is not in the form of real estate. Also, since the fair market value of the property is Php3,550,072.00 and 5% of this value is Php177,503.60 which is below the jurisdictional amount of Php200,00, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

PETITION DENIED.

MARIETTA N. BARRIDO vs. LEONARDO V. NONATOG.R. No. 176492 October 20, 2014Peralta, J.:

FACTS:In the course of the marriage of respondent and petitioner, they were able to acquire a property situated in Bacolod City consisting of a house and lot. On March 15, 1996, their marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Since there was no more reason to maintain their co-ownership over the property, Nonato asked Barrido for partition but the latter refused. Thus, Nonato filed a complaint for partition before the MTCC of Bacolod City.

Barrido claimed that the subject property had already been sold to their children. She likewise moved for the dismissal of the complaint because the MTCC lacked jurisdiction, the partition case being an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.

The MTCC Bacolod ruled, adjudicating the property to Barrido and ordering Nonato to pay damages, attorneys fees, and litigation expenses. Nonato appealed the decision before the RTC Bacolod. The RTC reversed the ruling of the MTCC, saying that it made a reversible error in adjudicating the said property to Barrido even if it applied Article 129 of the Family Code. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision, ruling that since the propertys assessed value was only Php8,080.00, it clearly fell within the MTCCs jurisdiction; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not the MTCC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

HELD:YES. The MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting title of real property, or for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. Here, the subject propertys assessed value was merely Php8,080.00, an amount which certainly does not exceed the required limit of Php20,000 for civil actions outside Metro Manila to fall within the jurisdiction of the MTCC. Therefore the lower court correctly took cognizance of the instant case.