Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 174908 June 17, 2013
DARMA MASLAG, Petitioner,
vs.
ELIA!ET" MONON, #ILLIAM GESTON, $n% REGISTR& O' DEEDS O'
!ENGUET, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
It is incu!bent upon " " " appellants to utili#e the correct !ode of appeal of the decisions of
trial courts to the appellate courts. In the !ista$en choice of their re!ed%, the% can bla!e no one
but the!selves.
&
'his is a Petition for Revie( on Certiorari
)
of the Ma% *&, )++, Resolution
*
of the Court of
-ppeals .C-/ in C-01.R. CV No. 2**,3, (hich dis!issed petitioner Dar!a Masla45s
.petitioner/ ordinar% appeal to it for bein4 an i!proper re!ed%. 'he Resolution disposed of the
case as follo(s6
78ERE9ORE, the Motion to Dis!iss is 1R-N'ED, and the -ppeal is hereb% DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
:
'he Petition also assails the C-;s Septe!ber )), )++, Resolution
3
den%in4 petitioner;s Motion
for Reconsideration.
,
9actual -ntecedents
In &<<2, petitioner filed a Co!plaint
=
for reconve%ance of real propert% (ith declaration of
nullit% of ori4inal certificate of title .OC'/ a4ainst respondents Eli#abeth Mon#on .Mon#on/,
7illia! 1eston and the Re4istr% of Deeds of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet. 'he Co!plaint (as filed
before the Municipal 'rial Court .M'C/ of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet.
-fter trial, the M'C found respondent Mon#on 4uilt% of fraud in obtainin4 an OC' over
petitioner;s propert%.
2
It ordered her to reconve% the said propert% to petitioner, and to pa%
da!a4es and costs of suit.
<
Respondents appealed to the Re4ional 'rial Court .R'C/ of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet.
-fter 4oin4 over the M'C records and the parties; respective !e!oranda, the R'C of >a
'rinidad, ?en4uet, ?ranch &+, throu4h -ctin4 Presidin4 @ud4e 9ernando P. Cabato .@ud4e
Cabato/, issued its October )), )++* Order,
&+
declarin4 the M'C (ithout Aurisdiction over
petitioner;s cause of action. It further held that it (ill ta$e co4ni#ance of the case pursuant to
Section 2, Rule :+ of the Rules of Court, (hich reads6
SEC'ION 2. -ppeal fro! orders dis!issin4 case (ithout trialB lac$ of Aurisdiction. C " " "
If the case (as tried on the !erits b% the lo(er court (ithout Aurisdiction over the subAect !atter,
the Re4ional 'rial Court on appeal shall not dis!iss the case if it has ori4inal Aurisdiction thereof,
but shall decide the case in accordance (ith the precedin4 section, (ithout preAudice to the
ad!ission of a!ended pleadin4s and additional evidence in the interest of Austice. ?oth parties
ac$no(led4ed receipt of the October )), )++* Order,
&&
but neither presented additional evidence
before the ne( Aud4e, Ed4ardo ?. Dia# De Rivera, @r. .@ud4e Dia# De Rivera/.
&)
On Ma% :, )++:, @ud4e Dia# De Rivera issued a Resolution
&*
reversin4 the M'C Decision. 'he
fallo reads as follo(s6
78ERE9ORE, the @ud4!ent appealed fro! the Municipal 'rial Court of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet
is set aside. DPetitionerE is ordered to turn over the possession of the :,:&3 sFuare !eter land she
presentl% occupies to DMon#onE. 'his case is re!anded to the court a Fuo for further proceedin4s
to deter!ine (hether DMasla4E is entitled to the re!edies afforded b% la( to a builder in 4ood
faith for the i!prove!ents she constructed thereon.
No pronounce!ent as to da!a4es and costs.
SO ORDERED.
&:
Petitioner filed a Notice of -ppeal
&3
fro! the R'C;s Ma% :, )++: Resolution.
Petitioner assailed the R'C;s Ma% :, )++: Resolution for reversin4 the M'C;s factual
findin4s
&,
and pra%ed that the M'C Decision be adopted. 8er pra%er before the C- reads6
78ERE9ORE, pre!ises considered, it is !ost respectfull% pra%ed that the decision of the
Re4ional 'rial Court, ?ranch &+ of >a 'rinidad, ?en4uet, appealed fro! be reversed in toto and
that the 8onorable Court adopt the decision of the Municipal 'rial Court. 9urther reliefs Aust and
eFuitable under the pre!ises are pra%ed for.
&=
Respondents !oved to dis!iss petitioner;s ordinar% appeal for bein4 the i!proper re!ed%. 'he%
asserted that the proper !ode of appeal is a Petition for Revie( under Rule :) because the R'C
rendered its Ma% :, )++: Resolution in its appellate Aurisdiction.
&2
Rulin4 of the Court of -ppeals
'he C- dis!issed petitioner;s appeal. It observed that the R'C;s Ma% :, )++: Resolution .the
subAect !atter of the appeal before the C-/ set aside an M'C @ud4!entB hence, the proper
re!ed% is a Petition for Revie( under Rule :), and not an ordinar% appeal.
&<
Petitioner sou4ht reconsideration.
)+
She ar4ued, for the first ti!e, that the R'C rendered its Ma%
:, )++: Resolution in its ori4inal Aurisdiction. She cited the earlier October )), )++* Order of the
R'C declarin4 the M'C (ithout Aurisdiction over the case.
'he C- denied petitioner;s Motion for Reconsideration in its Septe!ber )), )++, Resolution6
)&
- perusal of the Ma% :, )++: Resolution of the R'C, (hich is the subAect !atter of the appeal,
clearl% reveals that it too$ co4ni#ance of the M'C case in the e"ercise of its appellate
Aurisdiction. ConseFuentl%, as 7e have previousl% enunciated, the proper re!ed%, is a petition for
revie( under Rule :) and not an ordinar% appeal under Rule :&.
78ERE9ORE, pre!ises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 'he
Ma% *&, )++, Resolution of this Court is hereb% -99IRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
))
8ence this Petition (herein petitioner pra%s that the C- be ordered to ta$e co4ni#ance of her
appeal.
)*
Issues
Petitioner set forth the follo(in4 issues in her Petition6
78E'8ER G G G '8E COHR' O9 -PPE->S 7-S CORREC' IN DISMISSIN1 '8E
-PPE-> 9I>ED ?I '8E PE'I'IONER, CONSIDERIN1 '8-' '8E RE1ION-> 'RI->
COHR', ?R-NC8 &+ O9 >- 'RINID-D, ?EN1HE' 8E>D '8-' '8E ORI1IN->
COMP>-IN' -S 9I>ED ?E9ORE '8E MHNICIP-> 'RI-> COHR' O9 >- 'RINID-D,
?EN1HE' 7-S DECIDED ?I '8E >-''ER 7I'8OH' -NI @HRISDIC'ION -ND, IN
ORDERIN1 '8-' '8E C-SE S8->> ?E DECIDED PHRSH-N' 'O '8E PROVISION O9
SEC'ION 2 O9 RH>E :+ O9 '8E RH>ES O9 COHR', I' DECIDED '8E C-SE NO' ON
I'S -PPE>>-'E @HRISDIC'ION ?H' ON I'S ORI1IN-> @HRISDIC'ION 78-' 7I>>
?E '8E E99EC' O9 '8E DECISION O9 '8E RE1ION-> 'RI-> COHR', ?R-NC8 &+
O9 >- 'RINID-D, ?EN1HE', 78EN I' DECIDED - C-SE -PPE->ED ?E9ORE I'
HNDER '8E PROVISION O9 SEC'ION 2, RH>E :+ O9 '8E RH>ES O9 COHR' O9 '8E
P8I>IPPINES, -S 'O '8E COHRSE O9 REMEDI '8-' M-I ?E -V-I>ED O9 ?I '8E
PE'I'IONER C - PE'I'ION 9OR REVIE7HNDER RH>E :) OR -N ORDIN-RI -PPE->
HNDER RH>E :&.
):
Our Rulin4
In its October )), )++* Order, the R'C declared that the M'C has no Aurisdiction over the
subAect !atter of the case based on the supposition that the sa!e is incapable of pecuniar%
esti!ation. 'hus, follo(in4 Section 2, Rule :+ of the Rules of Court, it too$ co4ni#ance of the
case and directed the parties to adduce further evidence if the% so desire. 'he parties bo(ed to
this rulin4 of the R'C and, eventuall%, sub!itted the case for its decision after the% had
sub!itted their respective !e!oranda.
7e cannot, ho(ever, 4loss over this Aurisdictional fau" pas of the R'C. Since it involves a
Fuestion of Aurisdiction, (e !a% !otu proprio revie( and pass upon the sa!e even at this late
sta4e of the proceedin4s.
)3
In her Co!plaint
),
for reconve%ance of real propert% (ith declaration of nullit% of OC',
petitioner clai!ed that she and her father had been in open, continuous, notorious and e"clusive
possession of the disputed propert% since the &<:+;s. She averred6
=. So!eti!e in the %ear &<2=, Eli#abeth Mon#on, the o(ner of the adAacent parcel of land
bein4 occupied b% plaintiff DMasla4E, infor!ed the plaintiff that the respective parcels of
land bein4 clai!ed b% the! can no( be titled. - su44estion (as, thereafter !ade, that
those (ho (ere interested to have their lands titled, (ill contribute to a co!!on fund for
the surve%in4 and subseFuent titlin4 of the landB
2. Since plaintiff had, for so lon4, %earned for a title to the land she occupies, she
contributed to the a!ount bein4 reFuested b% Eli#abeth Mon#onB
<. - subdivision surve% (as !ade and in the surve%, the respective areas of the plaintiff
and the defendants (ere defined and deli!ited C all for purposes of titlin4. " " "
&+. ?ut alas, despite the assurance of subdivided titles, (hen the title (as finall% issued
b% the Re4istr% of Deeds, the sa!e (as onl% in the na!e of Eli#abeth Mon#on and
7I>>I-M 1ES'ON. 'he na!e of Dar!a Masla4 (as fraudulentl%, deliberatel% and in
bad faith o!itted. 'hus, the title to the propert%, to the e"tent of &2,)<3 sFuare !eters,
(as titled solel% in the na!e of E>IJ-?E'8 MONJON.
-s a relief, petitioner pra%ed that Mon#on be ordered to reconve% the portion of the propert%
(hich she clai!ed (as fraudulentl% included in Mon#on;s title. 8er pri!ar% relief (as to
recover o(nership of real propert%. Indubitabl%, petitioner;s co!plaint involves title to real
propert%. -n action involvin4 title to real propert%, on the other hand, (as defined as an action
(here the plaintiff;s cause of action is based on a clai! that she o(ns such propert% or that she
has the le4al ri4hts to have e"clusive control, possession, enAo%!ent, or disposition of the
sa!e.
)=
Hnder the present state of the la(, in cases involvin4 title to real propert%, ori4inal and e"clusive
Aurisdiction belon4s to either the R'C or the M'C, dependin4 on the assessed value of the
subAect propert%.
)2
Pertinent provisions of ?atas Pa!bansa ?l4. .?P/ &)<,
)<
as a!ended b%
Republic -ct .R-/ No. =,<&,
*+
provides6
Sec. &<. @urisdiction in civil cases. C Re4ional 'rial Courts shall e"ercise e"clusive ori4inal
Aurisdiction6
.&/ In all civil actions in (hich the subAect of the liti4ation is incapable of pecuniar%
esti!ationB
.)/ In all civil actions (hich involve the title to, or possession of, real propert%, or an%
interest therein, (here the assessed value of the propert% involved e"ceeds '(ent%
thousand pesos .P)+,+++.++/ or for civil actions in Metro Manila, (here " " " the
assessed value of the propert% e"ceeds 9ift% thousand pesos .DPE3+,+++.++/ e"cept
actions for forcible entr% into and unla(ful detainer of lands or buildin4s, ori4inal
Aurisdiction over (hich is conferred upon Metropolitan 'rial Courts, Municipal 'rial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit 'rial CourtsB
" " " "
SEC. **. @urisdiction of Metropolitan 'rial Courts, Municipal 'rial Courts and Municipal Circuit
'rial Courts in Civil Cases. K Metropolitan 'rial Courts, Municipal 'rial Courts and Municipal
Circuit 'rial Courts shall e"ercise6
" " " "
.*/ E"clusive ori4inal Aurisdiction in all civil actions (hich involve title to, or possession of, real
propert%, or an% interest therein (here the assessed value of the propert% or interest therein does
not e"ceed '(ent% thousand pesos .P)+,+++.++/ or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, (here such
assessed value does not e"ceed 9ift% thousand pesos .P3+,+++.++/ " " ".
In the case at bench, anne"ed to the Co!plaint is a Declaration of Real Propert%
*&
dated
Nove!ber &), &<<&, (hich (as later !ar$ed as petitioner;s E"hibit -,
*)
sho(in4 that the
disputed propert% has an assessed value ofP&),:++
**
onl%. Such assessed value of the propert% is
(ell (ithin the Aurisdiction of the M'C. In fine, the R'C, thru @ud4e Cabato, erred in appl%in4
Section &<.&/ of ?P &)< in deter!inin4 (hich court has Aurisdiction over the case and in
pronouncin4 that the M'C is divested of ori4inal and e"clusive Aurisdiction.
'his brin4s to fore the ne"t issue of (hether the C- (as correct in dis!issin4 petitioner;s appeal.
Section ), Rule 3+ of the Rules of Court provides for the dis!issal of an i!proper appeal6
SEC'ION ). Dis!issal of i!proper appeal to the Court of -ppeals. C -n appeal under Rule :&
ta$en fro! the Re4ional 'rial Court to the Court of -ppeals raisin4 onl% Fuestions of la( shall
be dis!issed, issues purel% of la( not bein4 revie(able b% said court. Si!ilarl%, an appeal b%
notice of appeal instead of b% petition for revie( fro! the appellate Aud4!ent of a Re4ional 'rial
Court shall be dis!issed.
-n appeal erroneousl% ta$en to the Court of -ppeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate
court but shall be dis!issed outri4ht.1wphi1 .E!phasis supplied/
'here are t(o !odes of appealin4 an R'C decision or resolution on issues of fact and la(.
*:
'he
first !ode is an ordinar% appeal under Rule :& in cases (here the R'C e"ercised its ori4inal
Aurisdiction. It is done b% filin4 a Notice of -ppeal (ith the R'C. 'he second !ode is a petition
for revie( under Rule :) in cases (here the R'C e"ercised its appellate Aurisdiction over M'C
decisions. It is done b% filin4 a Petition for Revie( (ith the C-. Si!pl% put, the distinction
bet(een these t(o !odes of appeal lies in the t%pe of Aurisdiction e"ercised b% the R'C in the
Order or Decision bein4 appealed.
-s discussed above, the M'C has ori4inal and e"clusive Aurisdiction over the subAect !atter of
the caseB hence, there is no other (a% the R'C could have ta$en co4ni#ance of the case and
revie( the court a Fuo;s @ud4!ent e"cept in the e"ercise of its appellate Aurisdiction. ?esides, the
ne( R'C @ud4e (ho penned the Ma% :, )++: Resolution, @ud4e Dia# de Rivera, actuall% treated
the case as an appeal despite the October )), )++* Order. 8e started his Resolution b% statin4,
'his is an appeal fro! the @ud4!ent rendered b% the Municipal 'rial Court .M'C/ of >a
'rinidad ?en4uet
*3
and then proceeded to discuss the !erits of the appeal. In the dispositive
portion of said Resolution, he reversed the M'C;s findin4s and conclusions and re!anded
residual issues for trial (ith the M'C. 'hus, in fact and in la(, the R'C Resolution (as a
continuation of the proceedin4s that ori4inated fro! the M'C. It (as a Aud4!ent issued b% the
R'C in the e"ercise of its appellate Aurisdiction. 7ith re4ard to the R'C;s earlier October )),
)++* Order, the sa!e should be disre4arded for it produces no effect .other than to confuse the
parties (hether the R'C (as invested (ith ori4inal or appellate Aurisdiction/. It cannot be
overe!phasi#ed that Aurisdiction over the subAect !atter is conferred onl% b% la( and it is not
(ithin the courts, let alone the parties, to the!selves deter!ine or convenientl% set
aside.
*=
Neither (ould the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to confer
ori4inal and e"clusive Aurisdiction (here the court or tribunal onl% (ields appellate Aurisdiction
over the case.
*2
'hus, the C- is correct in holdin4 that the proper !ode of appeal should have
been a Petition for Revie( under Rule :) of the Rules of Court, and not an ordinar% appeal under
Rule :&.
Seein4 the futilit% of ar4uin4 a4ainst (hat the R'C actuall% did, petitioner resorts to ar4uin4 for
(hat the R'C should have done. She !aintains that the R'C should have issued its Ma% :, )++:
Resolution in its ori4inal Aurisdiction because it had earlier ruled that the M'C had no
Aurisdiction over the cause of action.
Petitioner;s ar4u!ent lac$s !erit. 'o reiterate, onl% statutes can confer Aurisdiction. Court
issuances cannot sei#e or appropriate Aurisdiction. It has been repeatedl% held that an% Aud4!ent,
order or resolution issued (ithout Aurisdiction is void and cannot be 4iven an% effect.
*<
?% parit%
of reasonin4, an order issued b% a court declarin4 that it has ori4inal and e"clusive Aurisdiction
over the subAect !atter of the case (hen under the la( it has none cannot li$e(ise be 4iven
effect. It a!ounts to usurpation of Aurisdiction (hich cannot be countenanced. Since ?P &)<
alread% apportioned the Aurisdiction of the M'C and the R'C in cases involvin4 title to propert%,
neither the courts nor the petitioner could alter or disre4ard the sa!e. ?esides, in deter!inin4 the
proper !ode of appeal fro! an R'C Decision or Resolution, the deter!inative factor is the t%pe
of Aurisdiction actuall% e"ercised b% the R'C in renderin4 its Decision or Resolution. 7as it
rendered b% the R'C in the e"ercise of its ori4inal Aurisdiction, or in the e"ercise of its appellate
AurisdictionL In short, (e loo$ at (hat t%pe of Aurisdiction (as actuall% e"ercised b% the R'C. 7e
do not loo$ into (hat t%pe of Aurisdiction the R'C should have e"ercised. 'his is but lo4ical.
InFuirin4 into (hat the R'C should have done in disposin4 of the case is a Fuestion (hich
alread% involves the !erits of the appeal, but (e obviousl% cannot 4o into that (here the !ode
of appeal (as i!proper to be4in (ith.
78ERE9ORE, pre!ises considered, the Petition for Revie( is DENIED for lac$ of !erit. 'he
assailed Ma% *&, )++, and Septe!ber )), )++, Resolutions of the Court of -ppeals in C-01.R.
CV No. 2**,3 are -99IRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
-ssociate @ustice


Republic of the Philippines
Su()e*e Cou)+
Manila


'IRST DI,ISION


NILO PADRE, G.R. No. 1-.423
Petitioner,

0 versus 0 Present6

'RUCTOSA !ADILLO, CORON-, C. J., Chairperson,
'EDILA !ADILLO, VE>-SCO, @R.,
PRESENTACION CA!ALLES, >EON-RDO0DE C-S'RO,
ED#INA ,ICARIO /%0 DE> C-S'I>>O, and
)e()e1en+e% 23 MAR& JO& PEREJ, JJ.
,ICARIO4OR!ETA $n%
NELSON !ADILLO, Pro!ul4ated6
Respondents. @anuar% &<, )+&&
" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "


D E C I S I O N


DEL CASTILLO, J.5


M- void Aud4!ent is no Aud4!ent at all. It cannot be the source of an% ri4ht nor the creator of an%
obli4ation. -ll acts perfor!ed pursuant to it and all clai!s e!anatin4 fro! it have no le4al effect.N
D&E

'his petition for revie( on certiorari assails the Orders dated @ul% )& and Septe!ber )+,
)++:
D)E
issued b% the Re4ional 'rial Court .R'C/ of -llen, Northern Sa!ar, ?ranch )* in Special Civil
-ction No. -0<)=, (hich affir!ed the rulin4 of the Municipal 'rial Court .M'C/ of San Isidro, Northern
Sa!ar that it has Aurisdiction to tr% Civil Case No. &+:.

Factual Antecedents

On October &*, &<2,, the R'C of -llen, Northern Sa!ar, ?ranch )*, rendered Aud4!ent
D*E
in
Civil Case No. -03&: for O(nership and Recover% of Possession (ith Da!a4es in favor of therein
plaintiffs 9ructosa ?adillo, 9edila ?adillo, Ed(ina ?adillo, Presentacion ?adillo and Nelson ?adillo and
a4ainst therein defendants, includin4 Consesa Padre. 'he dispositive portion of the said Decision reads6

78ERE9ORE, on preponderance of evidence, the Court hereb% renders
Aud4!ent in favor of the plaintiffs and a4ainst the defendants, declarin4 and orderin4 as
follo(s6

&. 'hat the herein plaintiffs are the la(ful o(ners of the five0si"th .3O,/
portion of >ot No. :+2+, Pls03:, re4istered in Ori4inal Certificate of 'itle No. =*,, !ore
particularl%, the said five0si"th portion is described, delineated andOor indicated in the
S$etch Plan (hich is no( !ar$ed as E"hibit M?0&NB

). 'hat the said five0si"th .3O,/ portion (hich DisE herein adAud4ed as
bein4 o(ned b% the herein plaintiffs, include the portions of land presentl% bein4
occupied b% defendants " " ", Concesa Padre, " " "B

*. Orderin4 the defendants !entioned in No. ) hereof to vacate " " " the
lots respectivel% occupied b% the! and restore to Dthe herein plaintiffsE the !aterial
possessions thereofB

:. Conde!nin4 and orderin4 each of the sa!e defendants herein above0
na!ed to pa% plaintiffs the a!ount of P&++.++ per !onth, as !onthl% rental, startin4
fro! @anuar% &<, &<2+, until the lots in Fuestion shall have been finall% restored to the
plaintiffsB and

3. Conde!nin4 and orderin4 the herein defendants na!ed above to
Aointl% and severall% pa% the plaintiffs the a!ount of P3,+++.++ representin4 attorne%;s
fees and P),+++.++ as liti4ation e"penses, and to pa% the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.
D:E



'his Decision beca!e final and e"ecutor% on Nove!ber 3, &<2,.
D3E


On Dece!ber )<, &<<=, the ?adillo fa!il% filed another co!plaint a4ainst those (ho occup%
their propert% (hich included so!e of the defendants in Civil Case No. -03&:.
D,E
'he case (as filed (ith
the M'C of San Isidro, Northern Sa!ar and (as doc$eted as Civil Case No. &+:.
D=E
-s Consesa Padre
had alread% died in &<2<, her heir, Nilo Padre .Nilo/, (as i!pleaded as one of the defendants. 7hile
so!e of the defendants filed their respective ans(ers, Nilo (as one of those (ho (ere declared in default
for failure to file their ans(er to the co!plaint.
D2E

-lthou4h deno!inated as one for MO(nership and Possession,N the ?adillo fa!il% alle4ed in
their co!plaint in Civil Case No. &+: viz6

:. 'hat plaintiffs are the Aoint o(ners of >ot No. :+2+. Pls03:, (ith a total area
of &+,&,= sFuare !eters, covered b% OC' No. =*, in the na!e of EuteFuio ?adillo,
deceased husband of plaintiff 9ructosa ?adillo and father of the rest of the other plaintiffs,
covered b% 'a" Declaration No. <&,+ and assessed at P),,<:+.++B

3. 'hat plaintiffs in Civil Case No. -03&:, entitled 9ructosa ?adillo versus
Celso Castillo, et. al., (ere the prevailin4 parties in the aforesaid case as evidenced b% the
hereto attached cop% of the decision rendered b% the Re4ional 'rial Court in the above0
entitled case and !ar$ed as -nne" M-N and !ade inte4ral part of this co!plaintB

-. T6$+ $7+e) +6e 8u%9*en+ :n +6e $2o;e4*en+:one% <$1e 2e<$*e 7:n$=, +6e
1$*e >$1 e?e<u+e% $1 e;:%en<e% 23 $ <o(3 o7 +6e >):+ o7 e?e<u+:on 6e)e+o $++$<6e%
$1 Anne? @!A $n% *$%e :n+e9)$= ($)+ 6e)eo7B

7. T6$+ %e1(:+e +6e 1e);:<e o7 +6e >):+ o7 e?e<u+:on $n% ;$<$+:n9 +6e
()o(e)+:e1 ? ? ? :==e9$==3 o<<u(:e% 23 +6e $7o)e4*en+:one% %e7en%$n+1, C1$:%
%e7en%$n+1D )e4en+e)e% +6e ()o(e)+3 :n 1990 $7+e) +6e e?e<u+:on $n% )e7u1e% +o
;$<$+e +6e 1$*e C+6e)e23D )e$11e)+:n9 +6e:) <=$:*1 o7 o>ne)16:( ? ? ? %e1(:+e
)e(e$+e% %e*$n%1B

2. 'hat all atte!pts to(ards a peaceful settle!ent of the !atter outside of
Court to avoid a civil suit, such as referrin4 the !atter of the ?r4%. Captain and the ?r4%.
>upon of ?r4%. -le4ria, San Isidro, N. Sa!ar (ere of no avail as the defendants refused
to heed la(ful de!ands of plaintiffs to " " " vacate the pre!isesD. IEnstead, defendants
clai!ed o(nership of the propert% in Fuestion DandE refused to vacate the sa!e despite
repeated de!ands DsuchE that havin4 lost all peaceful re!edies, plaintiffs (ere
constrained to file this suit. Certificate to file -ction is hereb% attached and !ar$ed as
-nne" MCN and !ade inte4ral part hereofB
D<E
.E!phasis supplied./


Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court


'he M'C rendered Aud4!ent
D&+E
on @ul% &=, )++*. Interpretin4 the suit of the ?adillo fa!il% as
an action to revive the dor!ant Aud4!ent in Civil Case No. -03&:, the court reco4ni#ed the ri4ht of the
plaintiffs to finall% have such Aud4!ent enforced. 'he M'C disposed of the case as follo(s6

78ERE9ORE, Aud4!ent is ordered revivin4 the previous Aud4!ent of the
Re4ional 'rial Court there bein4, and still, preponderance of evidence in favor of
plaintiffs, as follo(s6

&. 'hat the herein plaintiffs are the la(ful o(ners of the five0si"th .3O,/
portion of >ot No. :+2+, Pls03:, re4istered in Ori4inal Certificate of 'itle No. =*+, !ore
particularl% " " " described, delineated andOor indicated in the S$etch Plan (hich is no(
!ar$ed as E"hibit M?0&NB

). 'hat the said five0si"th portion (hich is herein adAud4ed as bein4
o(neDdE b% herein plaintiffs, includes the portions of land presentl% bein4 occupied b%
defendants Victor Eulin, Consesa Padre, Celso Castillo, >eo -ti4a, Santos Corollo, IPe4o
-r!o4ela, Salustiano Millano, Mila4ros 1ile, Pusa% Entin4, 1aleleo Pilapil, !ore
particularl% indicated in E"hibit M?0&N and !ar$ed as E"hibits M?0*N, M?0:N, M?03,N M?0
,,N M?0=,N M?02,N M?0<,N M?0&+,N M?0&&,N M?0&),N and M?0&*N, respectivel%B

*. Orderin4 the defendants !entioned in No. ), hereof and '8OSE
PRESEN'>I N-MED -S P-R'I0DE9END-N'S IN '8IS REVIV-> O9
@HD1MEN' -ND '8OSE -C'IN1 IN PRIVI'I to vacate fro! the lots respectivel%
occupied b% the! and restore DtoE the herein plaintiff " " " the !aterial possession
thereofB

:. Conde!nin4 and orderin4 each of the sa!e defendants na!ed in the
previous civil case and those N-MED -NE7 to Aointl% and severall% pa% the plaintiffs
the a!ount of P3,+++.++, representin4 attorne%;s fees, and P),+++.++ as liti4ation
e"pensesB

3. CONDEMNIN1 ->> DE9END-N'S 8EREIN 'O P-I
EGEMP>-RI D-M-1ES 9OR O?S'IN-'E>I VIO>-'IN1 '8E DECISION O9
'8E COHR' @OIN'>I -ND SEVER->>I G G G '8E -MOHN' O9 P3,+++.++,
and to pa% the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.
D&&E

Nilo thereafter appeared and !oved to reconsider
D&)E
the M'C Aud4!ent. 8e ar4ued that the
M'C is (ithout Aurisdiction over the case, opinin4 that the action for revival of Aud4!ent is a real action
and should be filed (ith the sa!e court, i.e., the R'C, (hich rendered the decision sou4ht to be
revived. Or, assu!in4 arguendo that the M'C has Aurisdiction over real actions, it !ust be noted that the
subAect propert% is assessed at P),,<:+.++, an a!ount be%ond the P)+,+++.++ li!it for the M'C to have
Aurisdiction over real actions, in accordance (ith Republic -ct .R-/ No. =,<&.
D&*E
Nilo also contended
that the action is dis!issible for a/ lac$ of certificate of non0foru! shoppin4 in the co!plaint and b/
prescription, the co!plaint for revival of Aud4!ent havin4 been filed be%ond the &+0%ear re4le!entar%
period
D&:E
fro! the ti!e the Aud4!ent sou4ht to be revived beca!e final and e"ecutor% in Nove!ber
&<2,.

'he M'C denied the !otion for reconsideration.
D&3E
It held that the case is an action for revival of
Aud4!ent and not an action for o(nership and possession, (hich had alread% lon4 been settled. 'o the
M'C, the for!er is a personal action under Section ), Rule : of the Rules of Court (hich !a% be filed, at
the election of plaintiffs, either at the court of the place (here the% reside or (here the defendants
reside. 'he court found e"cusable the absence of the certification a4ainst foru! shoppin4, Austif%in4 that
the action filed before it is !erel% a continuation of the previous suit for o(nership. Moreover, the
counsel for the ?adillo fa!il%, a nona4enarian, !a% not %et have been fa!iliar (ith the rule (hen Civil
Case No. &+: (as filed. 'o it, this !ista$e should not preAudice the ?adillo fa!il% (ho deserve to
possess and enAo% their properties.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

?% (a% of a special civil action for certiorari, Nilo elevated the case to the R'C to Fuestion the
M'C;s Aurisdiction,
D&,E
reiteratin4 the sa!e 4rounds he had raised before the M'C. 'he case (as
doc$eted as Special Civil -ction No. -0<)=.

On @ul% )&, )++:, ho(ever, the R'C dis!issed said petition
D&=E
on the 4round that it (as filed
late. Moreover, the R'C upheld the M'C;s Aurisdiction over the case, affir!in4 the M'C;s ratiocination
that an action for enforce!ent of a dor!ant Aud4!ent is a personal action, and hence !a% be filed either
at the court of the place (here plaintiffs reside or (here the defendants reside.

In his Motion for Reconsideration,
D&2E
Nilo contended that his petition (ith the R'C (as ti!el%
filed as sho(n b% the re4istr% receipt dated March &, )++:,
D&<E
sta!ped on the !ailin4 envelope he used in
filin4 said petition. 8e ar4ued that this date of !ailin4 is also the date of filin4. 8e also contended that
the R'C;s Decision (as bereft of an% e"planation as to (h% it ruled that the case is a personal action. 8e
further alle4ed that the R'C failed to discuss the issues of prescription and non0co!pliance (ith the rule
a4ainst foru! shoppin4.

In its Order dated Septe!ber )+, )++:, the R'C denied the !otion for reconsideration. It said6

-ssu!in4 that the date of postin4 (as March &, )++:, as sho(n in the re4istr%

receipts, still the ,+0da% re4le!entar% period had alread% lapsed (ith Dece!ber *+, )++*
as the rec$onin4 period (hen petitioner received the Dece!ber <, )++* Order of 8on.
@ud4e @ose -. ?enesisto. 7ith the !onth of 9ebruar%, )++: havin4 )< da%s, it is no(
clear that the petition (as filed si"t% one .,&/ da%s afterB hence, there is no ti!eliness of
the petition to spea$ of.

Civil Case No. &+: is an ordinar% action to enforce a dor!ant Aud4!ent filed
b% plaintiffs a4ainst defendants. ?ein4 an action for the enforce!ent of dor!ant
Aud4!ent for da!a4es is a personal one and should be brou4ht in an% province (here the
plaintiff or defendant resides, at the option of the plaintiff. -s re4ards prescription, the
present rule no( is, the prescriptive period co!!ences to run ane( fro! the finalit% of
the revived Aud4!ent. - revived Aud4!ent is enforceable a4ain b% !otion (ithin five
%ears and thereafter b% another action (ithin ten %ears fro! the finalit% of the revived
Aud4!ent. 'here is, therefore, no prescription or be%ond the statute of li!itations to
spea$ DsicE in the instant case. Petitioner;s contention !ust therefore fail.

It is but proper and le4al that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3&: of (hich the%
are the prevailin4 parties to institute for the enforce!ent of a dor!ant Aud4!ent D(hich
ri4htE the% have failed to e"ercise " " " for !ore than a decade. ?ein4 an ordinar% action
to enforce a dor!ant Aud4!ent, not even testi!onial evidence is necessar% to enforce
such Aud4!ent because the decision had lon4 obtained its finalit%.

" " " "
D)+E


8ence, this petition.

Petitioners Arguments

Nilo finds the R'C;s adverse rulin4 as (antin4 in sufficient e"planation as to the factual and le4al
bases for upholdin4 the M'C. 8e also hi4hli4hts the failure of the ?adillo fa!il% to attach to their
co!plaint a certificate of non0foru! shoppin4. Petitioner also ar4ues that the date of !ailin4 of his
petition (ith the R'C is the date of his filin4. 8e stressed that the filin4 of his petition on March &, )++:
(as (ell (ithin the prescriptive period. -s the ,+
th
da% fro! Dece!ber *+, )++* fell on a Saturda%, he
!aintains that the Rules of Court allo(s hi! to file his petition on the ne"t (or$in4 da%, (hich is March
&, )++:, a Monda%.

-s have alread% been raised in the courts belo(, Nilo !entions the
follo(in4 4rounds for the dis!issal of the action a4ainst hi! before the M'C6

a/ 'he M'C lac$s Aurisdiction. Nilo reiterates that the pri!e obAective of the ?adillo
fa!il% in Civil Case No. &+: is to recover real propert%, (hich !a$es it a real action. Citin4 the case
of Aldeguer v. Gemelo,
D)&E
he contends that this suit !ust be brou4ht before the R'C of -llen, Northern
Sa!ar. ?esides, the assessed value of the land in controvers%, i.e., P),,<:+.++, divests the M'C of
Aurisdiction.

b/ Prescription. Nilo clai!s that the ?adillo fa!il%;s suit had alread% lapsed as the%
allo(ed && %ears to pass (ithout resortin4 to an% le4al re!ed% before filin4 the action for revival of
Aud4!ent. -lthou4h the ?adillo fa!il% !oved for the issuance of a (rit of e"ecution in Civil Case No.
-03&:, the sa!e did not interrupt the runnin4 of the period to have the Aud4!ent enforced b% !otion or
b% action.

Respondents Arguments

7hile i!pliedl% ac$no(led4in4 that Nilo seasonabl% filed his petition for certiorari (ith the
R'C, the ?adillo fa!il% note that he should have filed an appeal before the R'C. 'he% clai! that the%
properl% filed their case, a personal action, (ith the M'C of San Isidro, Northern Sa!ar as the% are
allo(ed under Section ), Rule : of the Rules of Court to elect the venue as to (here to file their case.

1rantin4 that their action is considered a revival of Aud4!ent, the ?adillos clai! that the% filed
their suit (ithin the &+0%ear period. 'he% contend that in filin4 Civil Case No. &+: in Dece!ber &<<=,
the prescriptive period should not be counted fro! the finalit% of Aud4!ent in Civil Case No. -03&:, but
should be rec$oned fro! -u4ust )), &<2<, (hen the R'C issued an Order that considered as
abandoned the !otion to declare the defendants in default in the conte!pt
proceedin4s.

I11ue

'he Fuestion that should be settled is (hether the R'C correctl% affir!ed the M'C rulin4 that it
has Aurisdiction over Civil Case No. &+:.

Ou) Ru=:n9

Indeed, MDtEhe e"istence and availabilit% of the ri4ht of appeal proscribes a resort
to certiorari.N
D))E
'he court a quo could have instead dis!issed Nilo;s petition on the 4round that this
Fuestion should have been raised b% (a% of an appeal.
D)*E
'his rule is subAect to e"ceptions, such as
M(hen the (rits issued are null and void or (hen the Fuestioned order a!ounts to an oppressive e"ercise
of Audicial authorit%.N
D):E
-s (ill be later on discussed, the R'C, althou4h it ulti!atel% erred in its
Aud4!ent, (as nevertheless correct in entertainin4 the special civil action for certiorari. 'he e"ceptions
(e !entioned appl% in the case at bar, as it turns out that petitioner;s Aurisdictional obAection has
co!pellin4 basis.

imeliness o! the petition !or certiorari

'he petition for certiorari before the R'C (as ti!el% filed. If the pleadin4 filed (as not done
personall%, the date of !ailin4, as sta!ped on the envelope or the re4istr% receipt, is considered as the
date of filin4.
D)3E
?% (a% of re4istered !ail, Nilo filed his petition for certiorari (ith the R'C on March
&, )++:, as indicated in the date sta!ped on its envelope. 9ro! the ti!e Nilo received on Dece!ber *+,
)++* the M'C;s denial of his !otion for reconsideration, the last da% for hi! to file his petition (ith the
R'C fell on 9ebruar% )2, )++:, a Saturda%. Hnder the Rules, should the last da% of the period to file a
pleadin4 fall on a Saturda%, a Sunda%, or a le4al holida%, a liti4ant is allo(ed to file his or her pleadin4 on
the ne"t (or$in4 da%,
D),E
(hich in the case at bar, fell on a Monda%, i.e., March &, )++:.

Jurisdiction over Civil Case "o. 1#$

7e shall no( loo$ into the core ar4u!ent of Nilo anent the M'C;s lac$ of Aurisdiction over the
case and the alle4ed prescription of the action.

MD7Ehat deter!ines the nature of the action and (hich court has Aurisdiction over it are the
alle4ations in the co!plaint and the character of the relief sou4ht.N
D)=E
In their co!plaint in Civil Case No.
&+:, so!e of the alle4ations of the ?adillo fa!il%, (hich petitioner never opposed and are thus dee!ed
ad!itted b% hi!, states6

:. 'hat plaintiffs are the Aoint o(ners of >ot No. :+2+. Pls03:, (ith a total area
of &+,&,= sFuare !eters, covered b% OC' No. =*, in the na!e of EuteFuio ?adillo,
deceased husband of plaintiff 9ructosa ?adillo and father of the rest of the other plaintiffs,
covered b% 'a" Declaration No. <&,+ and assessed at P),,<:+.++B

3. 'hat plaintiffs in Civil Case No. -03&:, entitled 9ructosa ?adillo versus
Celso Castillo, et. al., (ere the prevailin4 parties in the aforesaid case as evidenced b% the
hereto attached cop% of the decision rendered b% the Re4ional 'rial Court in the above0
entitled case and !ar$ed as -nne" M-N and !ade inte4ral part of this co!plaintB

-. T6$+ $7+e) +6e 8u%9*en+ :n +6e $2o;e4*en+:one% <$1e 2e<$*e 7:n$=, +6e
1$*e >$1 e?e<u+e% $1 e;:%en<e% 23 $ <o(3 o7 +6e >):+ o7 e?e<u+:on 6e)e+o $++$<6e%
$1 Anne? @!A $n% *$%e :n+e9)$= ($)+ 6e)eo7B

7. T6$+ %e1(:+e +6e 1e);:<e o7 +6e >):+ o7 e?e<u+:on $n% ;$<$+:n9 +6e
()o(e)+:e1 ? ? ? :==e9$==3 o<<u(:e% 23 +6e $7o)e4*en+:one% %e7en%$n+1, +6e =$++e) )e4
en+e)e% +6e ()o(e)+3 :n 1990 $7+e) +6e e?e<u+:on $n% )e7u1e% +o ;$<$+e +6e 1$*e
C+6e)e23D )e$11e)+:n9 +6e:) <=$:*1 o7 o>ne)16:( o;e) C+6e %:1(u+e% ()o(e)+:e1D $n%
)e7u1e% +o ;$<$+e +6e 1$*e %e1(:+e )e(e$+e% %e*$n%1B

2. 'hat all atte!pts to(ards a peaceful settle!ent of the !atter outside of
Court to avoid a civil suit, such as referrin4 the !atter of the ?r4%. Captain and the ?r4%.
>upon of ?r4%. -le4ria, San Isidro, N. Sa!ar (ere of no avail as the defendants refused
to heed la(ful de!ands of plaintiffs to " " " vacate the pre!isesD. IEnstead, defendants
clai!ed o(nership of the propert% in Fuestion refused to vacate the sa!e despite
repeated de!ands DsuchE that havin4 lost all peaceful re!edies, plaintiffs (ere
constrained to file this suit. Certificate to file -ction is hereb% attached and !ar$ed as
-nne" MCN and !ade inte4ral part hereofB
D)2E
.E!phasis supplied./


Hnder para4raph , of their co!plaint, the ?adillos alle4ed that Aud4!ent in Civil Case No. -03&:
had beco!e final and had been e"ecuted. 9urther, in para4raph =, the% alle4ed that in &<<+, the
defendants re0entered the propert% and despite repeated de!ands the% refused to vacate the sa!e. 'hus,
the ?adillos (ere not at all see$in4 a revival of the Aud4!ent. In realit%, the% (ere as$in4 the M'C to
le4all% oust the occupants fro! their lots.

'he ?adillo fa!il% (ould have been correct in see$in4 Audicial recourse fro! the M'C had the
case been an action for eAect!ent, i.e., one of forcible entr% under Rule =+ of the Rules of Court (herein
essential facts constitutin4 forcible entr%
D)<E
have been averred and the suit filed (ithin one %ear fro! the
ti!e of unla(ful deprivation or (ithholdin4 of possession, as the M'C has e"clusive ori4inal Aurisdiction
over such suit.
D*+E
8o(ever, as the alle4ed dispossession occurred in &<<+, the one0%ear period to brin4 a
case for forcible entr% had e"pired since the ?adillos filed their suit onl% in Dece!ber &<<=. 7e thus
construe that the re!ed% the% availed of is the plenar% action of accion pu%liciana,(hich !a% be
instituted (ithin &+ %ears.
D*&E
MIt is an ordinar% civil proceedin4 to deter!ine the better ri4ht of possession
of realt% independentl% of title. It also refers to an eAect!ent suit filed after the e"piration of one %ear fro!
the accrual of the cause of action or fro! the unla(ful (ithholdin4 of possession of the realt%.N
D*)E


7hether the case filed b% the ?adillo fa!il% is a real or a personal action is
irrelevant. Deter!inin4 (hether an action is real or personal is for the purpose onl% of deter!inin4
venue. In the case at bar, the Fuestion raised concerns Aurisdiction, not venue.

-lthou4h the ?adillo fa!il% correctl% filed a case for accion pu%liciana, the% pleaded their case
before the (ron4 court. In civil cases involvin4 realt% or interest therein not (ithin Metro Manila, the
M'C has e"clusive ori4inal Aurisdiction onl% if the assessed value of the subAect propert% or interest
therein does not e"ceed P)+,+++.++.
D**E
-s the assessed value of the propert% subAect !atter of this case
is P),,<:+.++, and since !ore than one %ear had e"pired after the dispossession, Aurisdiction properl%
belon4s to the R'C.
D*:E
8ence, the M'C has no Audicial authorit% at all to tr% the case in the first
place. M- decision of the court (ithout Aurisdiction is null and voidB hence, it could never lo4icall%
beco!e final and e"ecutor%. Such a Aud4!ent !a% be attac$ed directl% or collaterall%.N
D*3E


?ased on the fore4oin4 discussion, it is not an%!ore necessar% to discuss the issue raised
concernin4 the failure to include a certification of non0foru! shoppin4.

-lthou4h (e are co!pelled to dis!iss respondents; action before the M'C, the% are nonetheless
not precluded fro! filin4 the necessar% Audicial re!ed% (ith the proper court.

#"ERE'ORE, the petition is GRANTED. 'he Orders dated @ul% )& and Septe!ber )+,
)++: of the Re4ional 'rial Court of -llen, Northern Sa!ar, ?ranch )* in Special Civil -ction No. -0<)=
are hereb% SET ASIDE. 'he Municipal 'rial Court of San Isidro, Northern Sa!ar is DIRECTED to
dis!iss Civil Case No. &+: for lac$ of Aurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.


MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
'IRST DI,ISION

IRENE SANTE AND RE&NALDO
SANTE,
Petitioners,


0 versus 0


"ON. EDIL!ERTO T. CLARA,ALL, :n 6:1
<$($<:+3 $1 P)e1:%:n9 Ju%9e o7 !)$n<6 -0,
Re9:on$= T):$= Cou)+ o7 !$9u:o C:+3, $n%
,ITA N. EALAS"IAN,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 17391.

Present6

PHNO, C.J., Chairperson,
C-RPIO MOR->ES,
>EON-RDO0DE C-S'RO,
?ERS-MIN, and
VI>>-R-M-, @R., JJ.

Pro!ul4ated6

9ebruar% )), )+&+
?4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4?

DECISION
,ILLARAMA, JR., J.5
?efore this Court is a petition for certiorari
C1D
under Rule ,3 of the &<<= Rules of Civil
Procedure, as a!ended, filed b% petitioners Irene and Re%naldo Sante assailin4 the
Decision
C2D
dated @anuar% *&, )++, and the Resolution
C3D
dated @une )*, )++, of the Seventeenth
Division of the Court of -ppeals in C-01.R. SP No. 2=3,*. 'he assailed decision affir!ed the
orders of the Re4ional 'rial Court .R'C/ of ?a4uio Cit%, ?ranch ,+, den%in4 their !otion to
dis!iss the co!plaint for da!a4es filed b% respondent Vita Qalashian a4ainst the!.
'he facts, culled fro! the records, are as follo(s6
On -pril 3, )++:, respondent filed before the R'C of ?a4uio Cit% a co!plaint for
da!a4es
C4D
a4ainst petitioners. In her co!plaint, doc$eted as Civil Case No. 3=<:0R, respondent
alle4ed that (hile she (as inside the Police Station of Natividad, Pan4asinan, and in the presence
of other persons and police officers, petitioner Irene Sante uttered (ords, (hich (hen translated
in En4lish are as follo(s, M&ow man' rounds o! se( did 'ou have last night with 'our %oss, )ert*
+ou !uc,in- %itch.N ?ert refers to -lbert 1acusan, respondent;s friend and one .&/ of her hired
personal securit% 4uards detained at the said station and (ho is a suspect in the $illin4 of
petitioners; close relative. Petitioners also alle4edl% (ent around Natividad, Pan4asinan tellin4
people that she is protectin4 and cuddlin4 the suspects in the aforesaid $illin4. 'hus, respondent
pra%ed that petitioners be held liable to pa% !oral da!a4es in the a!ount
of P*++,+++.++B P3+,+++.++ as e"e!plar% da!a4esBP3+,+++.++ attorne%;s feesB P)+,+++.++
liti4ation e"pensesB and costs of suit.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dis!iss
C.D
on the 4round that it (as the Municipal 'rial Court
in Cities .M'CC/ and not the R'C of ?a4uio, that had Aurisdiction over the case. 'he% ar4ued
that the a!ount of the clai! for !oral da!a4es (as not !ore than the Aurisdictional a!ount
of P*++,+++.++, because the clai! for e"e!plar% da!a4es should be e"cluded in co!putin4 the
total clai!.
On @une ):, )++:,
C-D
the trial court denied the !otion to dis!iss citin4 our rulin4
in /overs0)aseco 1ntegrated Port 2ervices, 1nc. v. C'%org 3easing Corporation.
C7D
'he trial
court held that the total clai! of respondent a!ounted to P:)+,+++.++ (hich (as above the
Aurisdictional a!ount for M'CCs outside Metro Manila. 'he trial court also later issued Orders
on @ul% =, )++:
C8D
and @ul% &<, )++:,
C9D
respectivel% reiteratin4 its denial of the !otion to dis!iss
and den%in4 petitioners; !otion for reconsideration.
-44rieved, petitioners filed on -u4ust ), )++:, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,
C10D
doc$eted as CA4G.R. SP No. 8.4-., before the Court of -ppeals. Mean(hile, on @ul% &:,
)++:, respondent and her husband filed an -!ended Co!plaint
C11D
increasin4 the clai! for !oral
da!a4es fro! P*++,+++.++ toP&,+++,+++.++. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dis!iss (ith
-ns(er Ad Cautelam and Counterclai!, but the trial court denied their !otion in an
Order
C12D
dated Septe!ber &=, )++:.
8ence, petitioners a4ain filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
C13D
before the Court
of -ppeals, doc$eted as CA4G.R. SP No. 87.-3, clai!in4 that the trial court co!!itted 4rave
abuse of discretion in allo(in4 the a!end!ent of the co!plaint to increase the a!ount of !oral
da!a4es fro! P*++,+++.++ toP&,+++,+++.++. 'he case (as raffled to the Seventeenth Division
of the Court of -ppeals.
On @anuar% )*, )++,, the Court of -ppeals, Seventh Division, pro!ul4ated a decision in
C-01.R. SP No. 23:,3, as follo(s6
78ERE9ORE, findin4 4rave abuse of discretion on the part of DtheE
Re4ional 'rial Court of ?a4uio, ?ranch ,+, in renderin4 the assailed Orders dated
@une ):, )++: and @ul% D&<E, )++: in Civil Case No. 3=<:0R the instant petition
for certiorari is 1R-N'ED. 'he assailed Orders are hereb% -NNH>>ED
and SE' -SIDE. Civil Case No. 3=<:0R for da!a4es is ordered DISMISSED for
lac$ of Aurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.
C14D
'he Court of -ppeals held that the case clearl% falls under the Aurisdiction of the M'CC as the
alle4ations sho( that plaintiff (as see$in4 to recover !oral da!a4es in the a!ount of P*++,+++.++,
(hich a!ount (as (ell (ithin the Aurisdictional a!ount of the M'CC. 'he Court of -ppeals added
that the totalit% of clai! rule used for deter!inin4 (hich court had Aurisdiction could not be applied
to the instant case because plaintiff;s clai! for e"e!plar% da!a4es (as not a separate and distinct
cause of action fro! her clai! of !oral da!a4es, but !erel% incidental to it. 'hus, the pra%er for
e"e!plar% da!a4es should be e"cluded in co!putin4 the total a!ount of the clai!.
On @anuar% *&, )++,, the Court of -ppeals, this ti!e in C-01.R. SP No. 2=3,*, rendered a
decision affir!in4 the Septe!ber &=, )++: Order of the R'C den%in4 petitioners; Motion to
Dis!iss Ad Cautelam. In the said decision, the appellate court held that the total or a44re4ate
a!ount de!anded in the co!plaint constitutes the basis of Aurisdiction. 'he Court of -ppeals did
not find !erit in petitioners; posture that the clai!s for e"e!plar% da!a4es and attorne%;s fees
are !erel% incidental to the !ain cause and should not be included in the co!putation of the
total clai!.
'he Court of -ppeals additionall% ruled that respondent can a!end her co!plaint b%
increasin4 the a!ount of !oral da!a4es fro! P*++,+++.++ toP&,+++,+++.++, on the 4round that
the trial court has Aurisdiction over the ori4inal co!plaint and respondent is entitled to a!end her
co!plaint as a !atter of ri4ht under the Rules.
Hnable to accept the decision, petitioners are no( before us raisin4 the follo(in4 issues6
I.
78E'8ER OR NO' '8ERE 7-S 1R-VE -?HSE O9 DISCRE'ION
-MOHN'IN1 'O >-CQ OR IN EGCESS O9 @HRISDIC'ION ON '8E P-R'
O9 '8E .9ORMER/ SEVEN'EEN'8 DIVISION O9 '8E 8ONOR-?>E
COHR' O9 -PPE->S 78EN I' RESO>VED '8-' '8E RE1ION-> 'RI->
COHR' O9 ?-1HIO CI'I ?R-NC8 ,+ 8-S @HRISDIC'ION OVER '8E
SH?@EC' M-''ER O9 '8E C-SE 9OR D-M-1ES -MOHN'IN1
'O P*++,+++.++B
II.
78E'8ER OR NO' '8ERE 7-S 1R-VE -?HSE O9 DISCRE'ION ON
'8E P-R' O9 '8E 8ONOR-?>E RESPONDEN' @HD1E O9 '8E
RE1ION-> 'RI-> COHR' O9 ?-1HIO ?R-NC8 ,+ 9OR ->>O7IN1
'8E COMP>-IN-N' 'O -MEND '8E COMP>-IN' .INCRE-SIN1 '8E
-MOHN' O9 D-M-1ES 'O &,+++,+++.++ 'O CON9ER @HRISDIC'ION
OVER '8E SH?@EC' M-''ER O9 '8E C-SE DESPI'E '8E PENDENCI
O9 - PE'I'ION 9OR CER'IOR-RI 9I>ED -' '8E COHR' O9 -PPE->S,
SEVEN'8 DIVISION, DOCQE'ED -S C- 1.R. NO. 23:,3.
C1.D
In essence, the basic issues for our resolution are6
&/ Did the R'C acFuire Aurisdiction over the caseL and
)/ Did the R'C co!!it 4rave abuse of discretion in allo(in4 the a!end!ent of
the co!plaintL
Petitioners insist that the co!plaint falls under the e"clusive Aurisdiction of the
M'CC. 'he% !aintain that the clai! for !oral da!a4es, in the a!ount ofP*++,+++.++ in the
ori4inal co!plaint, is the !ain action. 'he e"e!plar% da!a4es bein4 discretionar% should not be
included in the co!putation of the Aurisdictional a!ount. -nd havin4 no Aurisdiction over the
subAect !atter of the case, the R'C acted (ith 4rave abuse of discretion (hen it allo(ed the
a!end!ent of the co!plaint to increase the clai! for !oral da!a4es in order to confer
Aurisdiction.
In her Co!!ent,
C1-D
respondent averred that the nature of her co!plaint is for recover% of
da!a4es. -s such, the totalit% of the clai! for da!a4es, includin4 the e"e!plar% da!a4es as
(ell as the other da!a4es alle4ed and pra%ed in the co!plaint, such as attorne%;s fees and
liti4ation e"penses, should be included in deter!inin4 Aurisdiction. 'he total clai!
bein4 P:)+,+++.++, the R'C has Aurisdiction over the co!plaint.
7e den% the petition, (hich althou4h deno!inated as a petition for certiorari, (e treat as a
petition for revie( on certiorari under Rule :3 in vie( of the issues raised.
Section &<.2/ of )atas Pam%ansa )lg. &)<,
C17D
as a!ended b% Republic -ct No. =,<&,
C18D
states6
SEC. &<. Jurisdiction in civil cases. C Re4ional 'rial Courts shall e"ercise
e"clusive ori4inal Aurisdiction6
" " " "
.2/ In all other cases in (hich the de!and, e"clusive of interest, da!a4es
of (hatever $ind, attorne%;s fees, liti4ation e"penses, and costs or the value of the
propert% in controvers% e"ceeds One hundred thousand pesos .P&++,+++.++/ or, in
such other cases in Metro Manila, (here the de!and, e"clusive of the
above!entioned ite!s e"ceeds '(o hundred thousand pesos .P)++,+++.++/.
Section 3 of Rep. -ct No. =,<& further provides6
SEC. 3. -fter five .3/ %ears fro! the effectivit% of this -ct, the
Aurisdictional a!ounts !entioned in Sec. &<.*/, .:/, and .2/B and Sec. **.&/ of
?atas Pa!bansa ?l4. &)< as a!ended b% this -ct, shall be adAusted to '(o
hundred thousand pesos .P)++,+++.++/. 9ive .3/ %ears thereafter, such
Aurisdictional a!ounts shall be adAusted further to 'hree hundred thousand pesos
.P*++,+++.++/6 Provided, however, 'hat in the case of Metro Manila, the
above!entioned Aurisdictional a!ounts shall be adAusted after five .3/ %ears fro!
the effectivit% of this -ct to 9our hundred thousand pesos .P:++,+++.++/.
Relatedl%, Supre!e Court Circular No. )&0<< (as issued declarin4 that the first
adAust!ent in Aurisdictional a!ount of first level courts outside of Metro Manila
fro! P&++,+++.++ to P)++,+++.++ too$ effect on March )+, &<<<. Mean(hile, the second
adAust!ent fro! P)++,+++.++ to P*++,+++.++ beca!e effective on 9ebruar% )), )++: in
accordance (ith OC- Circular No. ,30)++: issued b% the Office of the Court -d!inistrator on
Ma% &*, )++:.
?ased on the fore4oin4, there is no Fuestion that at the ti!e of the filin4 of the co!plaint
on -pril 3, )++:, the M'CC;s Aurisdictional a!ount has been adAusted to P*++,+++.++.
?ut (here da!a4es is the !ain cause of action, should the a!ount of !oral da!a4es
pra%ed for in the co!plaint be the sole basis for deter!inin4 (hich court has Aurisdiction or
should the total a!ount of all the da!a4es clai!ed re4ardless of $ind and nature, such as
e"e!plar% da!a4es, no!inal da!a4es, and attorne%;s fees,etc., be usedL
In this re4ard, -d!inistrative Circular No. +<0<:
C19D
is instructive6
" " " "
). 'he e"clusion of the ter! Mda!a4es of (hatever $indN in deter!inin4
the Aurisdictional a!ount under Section &< .2/ and Section ** .&/ of ?.P. ?l4. &)<,
as a!ended b% R.-. No. =,<&, applies to cases (here the da!a4es are !erel%
incidental to or a conseFuence of the !ain cause of action. "o>e;e), :n <$1e1
>6e)e +6e <=$:* 7o) %$*$9e1 :1 +6e *$:n <$u1e o7 $<+:on, o) one o7 +6e <$u1e1
o7 $<+:on, +6e $*oun+ o7 1u<6 <=$:* 16$== 2e <on1:%e)e% :n %e+e)*:n:n9 +6e
8u):1%:<+:on o7 +6e <ou)+. .E!phasis ours./
In the instant case, the co!plaint filed in Civil Case No. 3=<:0R is for the recover% of
da!a4es for the alle4ed !alicious acts of petitioners. 'he co!plaint principall% sou4ht an a(ard of
!oral and e"e!plar% da!a4es, as (ell as attorne%;s fees and liti4ation e"penses, for the alle4ed
sha!e and inAur% suffered b% respondent b% reason of petitioners; utterance (hile the% (ere at a
police station in Pan4asinan. It is settled that Aurisdiction is conferred b% la( based on the facts
alle4ed in the co!plaint

since the latter co!prises a concise state!ent of the ulti!ate facts
constitutin4 the plaintiff;s causes of action.
C20D
It is clear, based on the alle4ations of the co!plaint,
that respondent;s !ain action is for da!a4es. 8ence, the other for!s of da!a4es bein4 clai!ed b%
respondent, e.g., e"e!plar% da!a4es, attorne%;s fees and liti4ation e"penses, are not !erel%
incidental to or conseFuences of the !ain action but constitute the pri!ar% relief pra%ed for in the
co!plaint.
In /endoza v. 2oriano,
C21D
it (as held that in cases (here the clai! for da!a4es is the !ain
cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the a!ount of such clai! shall be considered in
deter!inin4 the Aurisdiction of the court. In the said case, the respondent;s clai! of P<)<,+++.+,
in da!a4es and P)3,+++ attorne%;s fees plus P3++ per court appearance (as held to represent the
!onetar% eFuivalent for co!pensation of the alle4ed inAur%. 'he Court therein held that the total
a!ount of !onetar% clai!s includin4 the clai!s for da!a4es (as the basis to deter!ine the
Aurisdictional a!ount.
-lso, in 1niego v. Purganan,
C22D
the Court has held6
'he a!ount of da!a4es clai!ed is (ithin the Aurisdiction of the R'C,
since it is the clai! for all $inds of da!a4es that is the basis of deter!inin4 the
Aurisdiction of courts, (hether the clai!s for da!a4es arise fro! the sa!e or fro!
different causes of action.
" " " "
Considerin4 that the total a!ount of da!a4es clai!ed (as P:)+,+++.++, the Court of
-ppeals (as correct in rulin4 that the R'C had Aurisdiction over the case.
>astl%, (e find no error, !uch less 4rave abuse of discretion, on the part of the Court of
-ppeals in affir!in4 the R'C;s order allo(in4 the a!end!ent of the ori4inal co!plaint
fro! P*++,+++.++ to P&,+++,+++.++ despite the pendenc% of a petition for certiorari filed before
the Court of -ppeals. 7hile it is a basic Aurisprudential principle that an a!end!ent cannot be
allo(ed (hen the court has no Aurisdiction over the ori4inal co!plaint and the purpose of the
a!end!ent is to confer Aurisdiction on the court,
C23D
here, the R'C clearl% had Aurisdiction over
the ori4inal co!plaint and a!end!ent of the co!plaint (as then still a !atter of ri4ht.
C24D

#"ERE'ORE, the petition is DENIED, for lac$ of !erit. 'he Decision and
Resolution of the Court of -ppeals dated @anuar% *&, )++, and @une )*, )++,, respectivel%,
are A''IRMED. 'he Re4ional 'rial Court of ?a4uio Cit%, ?ranch ,+ is DIRECTED to
continue (ith the trial proceedin4s in Civil Case No. 3=<:0R (ith deliberate dispatch.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. ,ILLARAMA, JR.
-ssociate @ustice
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 117383 March 6, 1995
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANING CORPORATION !RCBC", petitioner,
vs.
#ON. LUCIA $. ISNANI, PRESI%ING &U%GE O' BRANC# 59, RTC, MAATI, #ON. 'ELICI%A%
(. NA$ARRO)*UIAMBAO, PRESI%ING &U%GE, BRANC# 65, MTC, MAATI, AN% LOLITA
ENCELAN, respondents.
R S O ! " T I O N

$ITUG, J.:
This #ourt has resolved to reconsider its Resolution, dated $% Nove&ber '((), dis&issin* the
instant petition for failure to co&pl+ ,ith re-uire&ent nu&bered .)/ of Revised #ircular No. '011
.verified state&ent of &aterial dates/, ,hich it no, hereb+ dispenses ,ith, in the interest of an earl+
*uidance on the -uestion posed and in order not to perpetuate an apparent &isapplication b+ the
courts belo, relative to one particular aspect of Republic 2ct .3R.2.3/ No. %4(' .e5pandin* the
6urisdiction of &unicipal and &etropolitan trial courts/.
It ,ould appear that in a co&plaint filed, on 7% 2pril '(() .a fe, da+s after the effectivit+ of Republic
2ct No. %4(', a&endin* 8atas Pa&bansa 8l*. '7(/, ,ith the Ma9ati Re*ional Trial #ourt .3RT#3/,
private respondent !olita ncelan sou*ht to recover fro& petitioner Ri:al #o&&ercial 8an9in*
#orporation actual da&a*es of ;<,$$$.$$ or its Philippine peso e-uivalent of appro5i&atel+
P'=%,4%<.$$. Petitioner thereupon &oved to dis&iss the case for lac9 of 6urisdiction on the *round
that the co&plaint ,as co*ni:able b+ the &etropolitan trial court .in Metro Manila/, not the RT#, the
principal de&and pra+ed for not bein* in e5cess of T,o Hundred Thousand Pesos .P7$$,$$$.$$/.
Respondent RT# >ud*e !ucia V. Isnani, instead of dis&issin* the co&plaint, transferred, on $1 >ul+
'((), the entire records of the case to the Metropolitan Trial #ourt .3MT#3/. The case ,as assi*ned
to the sala of MT# >ud*e ?elicidad Navarro0@uia&bao. "pon learnin* of the transfer, petitioner
sou*ht .,ith the MT#/ a reconsideration thereof. On '4 Septe&ber '((), respondent MT# >ud*e
Navarro0@uia&bao issued an Order den+in* the &otion.
Hence, this petition.
The pertinent provisions of R.2. No. %4(' provideA
Sec. =. Section == of the sa&e la, is hereb+ a&ended to read as follo,sA
Sec. ==. >urisdiction of Metropolitan Trial #ourts, Municipal Trial
#ourts and Municipal #ircuit Trial #ourts in #ivil #ases. B
Metropolitan Trial #ourts, Municipal Trial #ourts and Municipal #ircuit
Trial #ourts shall e5erciseA
.'/ 5clusive ori*inal 6urisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedin*s, testate
and intestate, includin* the *rant of provisional re&edies in proper cases, ,here the
value of the personal propert+, estate, or a&ount of the de&and does not e5ceed
One hundred thousand pesos .P'$$,$$$.$$/ or, in Metro Manila ,here such
personal propert+, estate, or a&ount of the de&and does not e5ceed T,o hundred
thousand pesos .P7$$,$$$.$$/, e5clusive of interest, da&a*es of ,hatever 9ind,
attorne+Cs fees, liti*ation e5penses, and costs, the a&ount of ,hich &ust be
specificall+ alle*edA Provided, That interest, da&a*es of ,hatever 9ind, attorne+Cs
fees, liti*ation e5penses, and costs shall be included in the deter&ination of the filin*
feesA Provided further, That ,here there are several clai&s or causes of actions
bet,een the sa&e or different parties, e&bodied in the sa&e co&plaint, the a&ount
of the de&and shall be the totalit+ of the clai&s in all the causes of action,
irrespective of ,hether the causes of action arose out of the sa&e or different
transactions.
555 555 555
Sec. %. The provisions of this 2ct shall appl+ to all civil cases that have not +et
reached the pretrial sta*e. Ho,ever, b+ a*ree&ent of all the parties, civil cases
co*ni:able b+ &unicipal and &etropolitan courts b+ the provisions of this 2ct &a+ be
transferred fro& the Re*ional Trial #ourts to the latter. The e5ecutive 6ud*e of the
appropriate Re*ional Trial #ourt shall define the ad&inistrative procedure of
transferrin* the cases affected b+ the redefinition of 6urisdiction to the Metropolitan
Trial #ourts, Municipal Trial #ourts and Municipal #ircuit Trial #ourts.
The above rules, in eas+ *raphic presentation, &a+ be restated thusl+A
2. #ivil actions and settle&ent of estate proceedin*s, testate or intestate, includin*
the *rant of provisional re&edies ,hen ,arranted, ,here the value of the personal
propert+, estate, or a&ount of the de&and does not e5ceed One Hundred Thousand
Pesos .P'$$,$$$.$$/, or T,o Hundred Thousand Pesos .P7$$,$$$.$$/ in Metro
Manila, e5clusive of interest, da&a*es of ,hatever 9ind, attorne+Cs fees, liti*ation
e5penses, and costs .the a&ount of ,hich &ust be specificall+ alle*ed/, shall, after
the effectivity of R.A. 7691, be filed ,ith the &etropolitan and &unicipal trial courts.
8. #ivil actions or a settle&ent of estate proceedin*s, aforesaid, pending ,ith
re*ional trial courts ,hich have alread+ reached the pretrial sta*e at the ti&e of the
effectivit+ of R.2. %4(' shall re&ain ,ith said courts for proper disposition. The
transfer of pendin* cases .,hich have alread+ reached the pretrial sta*e/ to
&etropolitan or &unicipal trial courts &a+ be allo,ed, ho,ever, provided the
follo,in* conditions concurD viz.A
.a/ the case is co*ni:able b+ the &unicipal or &etropolitan trial court
under the present provisions of the 2ctD and
.b/ the parties a*ree to the transfer of the case fro& the re*ional trial
court to the &unicipal or &etropolitan trial court.
#. R.2. %4(' too9 effect on '< 2pril '(() or fifteen .'</ da+s after its publication on
=$ March '((). #ases filed on or after such effectivit+ date &ust accord ,ith the ne,
6urisdictional &andateD a disre*ard thereof shall constitute a *round for the dis&issal
of the action or proceedin* for lac9 of 6urisdiction.
In the instant case, the principal de&and pra+ed for in the co&plaint filed on 7% 2pril '((), or after
R.2. %4(' had alread+ beco&e effective, ,ith the Ma9ati RT#, is onl+ for "S;<,$$$.$$, or
appro5i&atel+ P'=%,4%<.$$ in Philippine currenc+, and thusl+ ,ithin the e5clusive 6urisdiction of the
Metro Manila MT#s. Instead of orderin* the transfer of the co&plaint to the MT#, respondent RT#
6ud*e, therefore, should have dis&issed the case pra+ed for b+ petitioner for lac9 of 6urisdiction.
EHR?OR, the &otion for reconsideration is FR2NTD. The appealed order of RT# >ud*e
!ucia V. Isnani den+in* petitionerCs &otion to dis&iss and transferrin* the case instead to the MT#
and the order issued b+ MT# >ud*e ?elicidad G. Navarro0@uia&bao .to ,ho& the case
,as transferred/, den+in* petitionerCs &otion for reconsideration, are hereb+ set aside. The
co&plaint in RT# #ivil #ase No. ()0'4== a*ainst petitioner is hereb+ ordered DISMISSD ,ithout
pre6udice, ho,ever, to petitionerCs institutin* an ori*inal action ,ith the court of proper 6urisdiction. No
costs.
SO ORDRD.
Feliciano, Romero, Melo and Francisco, !, concur!