MALANA V TAPPA

FACTS: Petitioners Carmen Danao Malana, et al. (?Danao heirs?) alleged to be the
owners of a land in Tugegarao which they inherited from Anastacio Danao. Durin
g the lifetime of Danao, he allowed Consuelo Pauig (family member of Tappa) to b
uild on and occupy the southern portion of the subject property. Danao and Cons
uelo agreed that the latter would vacate the said land at any time that Danao an
d his heirs might need it. Danao heirs claimed that respondents Benigno Tappa, e
t al. continued to occupy the subject property even after Consuelo s death, buildi
ng their residences thereon using permanent materials. Danao heirs also learned
that Tappa, et al. were claiming ownership over the subject property. Averring
that they already needed it, Danao heirs demanded that respondents vacate the s
ame. The call was unheeded. Meanwhile, Danao heirs referred their land dispute t
o the Lupong Tagapamayapa. During the conciliation proceedings, respondents ass
erted that they owned the subject property and presented documents ostensibly su
pporting their claim of ownership. The heirs opposed this, saying that the docum
ents were falsified and highly dubious. This notwithstanding, Tappa, et al. crea
ted a cloud upon the
heirs title to the property. Thus, the heirs filed a case for Reivindicacion, Qu
ieting of Title, and Damages in the RTC.
Issue: Did the judge commit grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissing
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction?
No GAD. Petition is dismissed. RTC sho
uld remand the records to the MTC.
Held: An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested u
nder a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights ar
e affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The
relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of
the validity of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the part
ies rights or duties thereunder. Petitions for declaratory relief are governed b
y Rule 63. Section 1 states that an action for the reformation of an instrument,
to quiet title, and to consolidate ownership in a sale with a right to repurcha
se ?may? be brought under the RTC. These remedies are considered similar to decl
aratory relief because they result in the adjudication of the legal rights of th
e litigants, often without the need of execution. Whereas the Rules of Court use
s ?may,? the amended Judicial Reorganization Act uses the word ?shall? in determ
ining jurisdiction. JRA explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive origin
al jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of r
eal property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000 (OMM) or P50,000 (
MM). In this case, the assessed value of the subject property is only P410.00; t
herefore, the jurisdiction is with the MTC, not the RTC. Further, an action fo
r declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the ins
truments involved or of rights arising thereunder. The purpose of an action for
declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obl
igations of the parties under a statute, deed or contract for their guidance in
the enforcement thereof, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach
thereof. Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the fi
ling of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisd
iction over the action. In the present case, the case for quieting of title was
filed after Danao heirs already demanded, and Tappa refused to vacate the subje
ct property. Since the heirs had already been deprived of the possession of the
ir property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion publiciana or
an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. An accion public
iana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed one year after the occurren
ce of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the
realty. Jurisdiction over such an action would depend on the value of the proper
ty involved. Given that the property is only at P410.00, then the MTC, not the
RTC, has jurisdiction over an action to recover the same.