EULALIA RUSSELL et al vs. HON. AUGUSTINE A.

VESTIL
G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999
Kapunan, 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 CENTER
G.R. No. 174497 October 12, 2009
Abad, 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 CRUZ
G.R. No. 155179
Austria-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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 2007
Puno, 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 24hectare 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.

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.

CA DECISION AFFIRMED.
ARACELI J. CABRERA et al vs. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO et al.
G.R. No. 172293 August 28, 2013
Del 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.

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. NONATO
G.R. No. 176492 October 20, 2014
Peralta, 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.

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

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.

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.