Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738; GR No.

119347, March 17, 1999

Posted by Pius Morados on November 28, 2011

the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-described. It is
axiomatic that 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.

(Civil Procedures Jurisdiction; Civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation)
Facts: Petitioners discovered a public document, which is a declaration of heirs and deed of
confirmation of a previous oral agreement, of partition, affecting the land executed by and among
the respondents whereby respondents divided the property among themselves to the exclusion of
petitioners who are entitled thereto as legal heirs also.
Petitioners filed a complaint, denominated DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION
against defendants with the RTC claiming that the document was false and perjurious as the
private respondents were not the only heirs and that no oral partition of the property whatsoever had
been made between the heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void
and an order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs.
Private 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 P5,000.00 which under
section 33 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the RTC has jurisdiction over
the case since the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation within the contemplation
of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as amended.
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the nature of the civil case.
Held: Yes. The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court.
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, the Supreme Court ruled that:
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).
The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the document in
question. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to

LU v. LU YM
G.R. No. 153690 / AUG 4, 2009 / NACHURA, J./CIVPRO-JURISDICTION OF RTC/
RPNICOLAS

NATURE: Motion for Reconsideration

PETITIONERS: David Lu

RESPONDENTS: Paterno Lu Ym, Sr. et al.

SUMMARY. In this case, the Lu Ym father and sons moved to reconsider the
decision of the Court in 2008 that the complaint filed by David et al. was incapable
of pecuniary estimation. The father and sons point out that the case filed by David
et al. allege the real value of the shares, based on underlying real estate values
worth P1,087,055,105. The Court resolved that it was indeed capable of pecuniary
estimation and that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case filed by
David et al. since they did not pay the correct docket fees.
DOCTRINE. A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the
prescribed fees. Hence, without payment of the correct docket fees, the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the action filed by David, et al.

FACTS.

On August 14, 2000, David Lu, Rosa Go, SilvanoLudoand CL Corporation

filed with the Regional Trial Court(RTC) of Cebu City a complaint against
Paterno Lu Ym,Sr., Paterno Lu Ym, Jr., Victor Lu Ym, John Lu Ym, KellyLu Ym,
and Ludo&Luym Development Corporation(LLDC) for Declaration of Nullity
of Share Issue,Receivership and Dissolution.
The plaintiffs, shareholders ofLLDC, claimed that the Lu Ym father and
sons, asmembers of the Board of Directors, caused the issuance tothe
latter of 600,000 of the corporations unsubscribed andunissued shares for
less than their actual value. They thenprayed for the dissolution of the
corporation and theappointment of a receiver during the pendency of
theaction.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint but were denied and
placed LLDC under receivership.
Defendants Lu Ym father and sons elevated the matterto the Court of
Appeals through a petition for certiorari but was still denied. They re-filed
the petition and was granted.
The Lu Ym father and sons then filed with the trialcourt a motion to lift the
order of receivership over LLDC.Before the matter could be heard, David

instituted apetition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA on theissue

of the motion to lift order of receivership.
On February 27, 2003, the CAgranted the petition and ruled that the
proceedings on thereceivership could not proceed without the
partiesamending their pleadings. The Lu Ym father and sons thusfiled a
petition for review with this Court.
On March 31, 2003, the plaintiffs therein filed a Motionto Admit Complaint
to Conform to the Interim RulesGoverning IntraCorporateControversies,
which wasadmitted by the trial court.
On January 23, 2004, the Lu Ym father and sonsinquired from the Clerk of
Court as to the amount of docketfees paid by David, et al. John Lu Ym
further inquired fromthe Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on
thecorrectness of the amount paid by David, et al. The OCAinformed John
Lu Ym that a query on the matter of docketfees should be addressed to the
trial court and not to theOCA.
On March 1, 2004, the RTC decided the case on themerits. It annulled the
issuance of LLDCs 600,000 sharesof stock to the Lu Ym father and sons. It
also ordered thedissolution of LLDC and the liquidation of its assets,
andcreated a management committee to take over LLDC. TheLu Ym father
and sons appealed to the CA.
In our August 26, 2008 Decision, we declared that thesubject matter of the
complaint filed by David, et al., wasone incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Movants beg us toreconsider this position, pointing out that the case
filedbelow by David, et al., had for its objective the nullificationof the
issuance of 600,000 shares of stock of LLDC. Thecomplaint itself contained
the allegation that the realvalue of these shares, based on underlying real
estatevalues, was One Billion Eighty Seven Million Fifty FiveThousand One
Hundred Five Pesos (P1,087,055,105).
Upon deeper reflection, we find that the movants claimhas merit. The
600,000 shares of stock were, indeed,properties in litigation. They were
the subject matter of thecomplaint, and the relief prayed for entailed
thenullification of the transfer thereof and their return toLLDC.
Thus, to the extent of the damage or injury theyallegedly have suffered
from this sale of the shares of stock,the action they filed can be
characterized as one capable ofpecuniary estimation. The shares of stock
have a definitevalue, which was declared by plaintiffs themselves in
theircomplaint. Accordingly, the docket fees should have beencomputed
based on this amount. This is clear from thefollowing version of Rule 141,
Section 7, which was in effectat the time the complaint was filed.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1.

WON the trial court acquired jurisdictionover the action filed by

David NO.
We have earlier held that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only
upon the payment of the prescribed fees. Hence, without payment of
the correct docket fees, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the action filed by David, et al. We also stated in our Decision
that the earlier rule in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court
of Appeals has been relaxed. Subsequent decisions now uniformly

hold that when insufficient filing fees are initially paid by the
plaintiffsand there is no intention to defraud the government, the
Manchester rule does not apply.

The nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction is determined by the
material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in
effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the
claims asserted therein.

DECISION.

The complaint did not contain an allegation stating the assessed value of the property. Absent any
allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it could not thus be determined
whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the action.

The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the action filed by
David.Consequently, all interlocutory matters pending before this Court,
specifically the incidents subject of these three consolidated petitions, must be
denied for being moot and academic

The law also explicitly excluded from the determination of the jurisdictional amount the demand for
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs.

Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384 (April 29, 2005) Case Digest

HILARIO vs. SALVADOR

G.R. No. 160384 . April 29, 2005, CALLEJO, SR. , J .

Ownership > Ownership in General > Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership > Actions
Available to Owner > Recovery of Real Property > Accion Publiciana and Accion Reinvindicatoria

Whether or not the action filed by Hilario was an accion reinvindicatoria.

FACTS: Petitioners herein are co-owners of a parcel of land located in

Romblon. In 1996, they filed a complaint with the RTC of Romblon against
herein, respondent, alleging that as co-owners, they are entitled to possession
of the lot, and that respondent constructed his house thereon without their
knowledge and refused to vacate the property despite demands to do so. They
prayed for the private respondent to vacate the property and restore
possession thereof to them. The complaint, however, failed to allege the
assessed value of the land. Nevertheless, petitioners were able to present
during the trial the most recent tax declaration, which shows that the assessed
value of the property was Php 5,950.00.
The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction because of the failure to allege the value of the land. The motion
was denied.
Respondent then filed an Answer, traversing the material allegations
of the complaint, contending that petitioners had no cause of action against
him since the property in dispute was the conjugal property of his
grandparents, the spouses Salustiano Salvador and Concepcion Mazo-Salvador.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, the CA reversed
the decision, holding that the action was one for the recovery of ownership and
possession of real property, and that absent any allegation in the complaint of
the assessed value of the property, the MTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the
action (citing Sec. 33 of R.A. No. 7691). The CA then ordered the refiling of the
case in the proper court.

Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Hilario.

ISSUES: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the action

Held:

HELD: NO. Petitioner argues that the RTC has jurisdiction since their action is
an accion reivindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Thus,
regardless of the assessed value of the subject property, exclusive jurisdiction
falls within the said court. This argument is without merit.
The jurisdiction of the court over an action involving title to or
possession of land is now determined by the assessed value of the said

Facts:
Hilario filed a complaint with the RTC against Salvador alleging that they were the co-owners of
the parcel of land where Salvador constructed his house without their knowledge and refused to
vacate despite their demands.
Salvodor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He
contended that the complaint did not state the assessed value of the property, which determines the
jurisdiction of the court.
Hilario maintained that the RTC had jurisdiction since their action was an accion reinvindicatoria,
an action incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, regardless of the assessed value of the subject
property, exclusive jurisdiction fell within the said court. Also, in their opposition to Salvador's
motion to dismiss, they mentioned the increase in the assessed value of the land in the amount of
P3.5 million. Moreover, they maintained that their action was also one for damages exceeding
P20,000.00, over which the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction.
Issue:

The action filed by Hilario did not involve a claim of ownership over the property. They prayed that
Salvador vacate the property and restore possession to them. Hence, it was an accion publiciana, or
one for the recovery of possession of the real property. It was not an aaccion reinvindicatoria or a
suit for the recovery of possession over the real property as owner.

Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the
decision of the RTC, were null and void.

property and not the market value thereof. [] In the case at bar, the
complaint does not contain an allegation stating the assessed value of the
property subject of the complaint. The court cannot take judicial
notice of the assessed or market value of land. The Court noted that during the
trial, the petitioners adduced in evidence at ax de c l a r a t ion, showing that
the assessed value of the property in 1991 was Php5,950.00. The petitioners,
however, did not bother to adduce in evidence the tax declaration containing
the assessed value of the property when they filed their complaint in 1996.
Even assuming that the assessed value of the property in 1991 was the same
in 1995 or 1996, the MTC, and not the RTC had jurisdiction over the action of
the petitioners, since the case involved title to or possession of real property
with an assessed value of less than Php20,000.00. As the Court of Appeals had
held:
The determining jurisdictional element for the accion reinvindicatoria
[sic] is, as RA 7691 discloses, the assessed value of the property in
question.
For properties in the provinces, the RTC has jurisdiction if the
assessed value exceeds Php20,000.00, and the MTC, if the value is
Php20,000.00 or below. An assessed value can have reference only to
the tax rolls in the municipality where the property is located, and is
contained in the tax declaration. In the case at bench, the most recent
tax declaration secured and presented by the plaintiffs-appellees is
Exhibit B. The loose remark made by them that the property was
worth 3.5 million pesos, not to mention that there is absolutely no
evidence for this, is irrelevant in the light of the fact that there is an
assessed value. It is the amount in the tax declaration that should be
consulted and no other kind of value, and as appearing in Exhibit B,
this is Php5,950.00. The case, therefore, falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Romblon which has
jurisdiction over the territory where the property is located, and not
the court a quo. 24

should have been discussed in the obiter is that if the claim of co-ownership by
the defendant is true, may a plaintiff co-owner then file an action in ejectment
against another co-owner?
Dr. Tolentino is of the opinion that a co-owner may bring such an action against
another co-owner who takes exclusive possession of and asset ownership in
himself alone. The effect of the action will be to obtain recognition of the coownership.
The defendant co-owner, however, cannot be excluded from possession
because as co-owner, he also has the right to possess.

In an obiter, the Court discussed the nature of an accion publiciana, thus:

The action of the petitioners was an accion publiciana, or one for the recovery
of possession of the real property subject matter thereof. It does
not involve a claim of ownership over the property. An accion reinvindicatoria
is a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real
property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership and possession based on
the said ownership. On the other hand, an accion publiciana is one for the
recovery of pos session of the right to possess. It is also referred to as an
ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year after the occurrence of the
cause of action or from the unlawful withholding
of possession of the realty. []
The Supreme Court finally held that all proceedings before the RTC, including
the RTC decision, are null and void, since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the
action of the petitioners.
Criticism of the ponencia: The discussion about the distinction between an
accion reivindicatoria and an accion publiciana is inappropriate. The issue to be
resolved by the court is: which court has jurisdiction, the MTC or the RTC? It is
immaterial whether the case is one for accion reivindicatoria or accion
publiciana; only one court will have exclusive jurisdiction. I submit that what

Petitioners, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Metc had
no jurisdiction, as the subject of litigation was incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
The MeTC then issued an order denying the motion to dismiss,
ruling that, under Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended, the MeTC had
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real
property of small value. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC which was also
dismissed.
Petitioners then filed with the CA another petition for certiorari. The CA
dismissed the petition holding that certiorari was not available to petitioners as
they should have availed themselves the remedy of appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC and the CA ruled correctly that the MeTV had
jurisdiction over private respondents complaint for accionreivindicatoria.
Held:
San Pedro vs Asdala
593 SCRA 397
Facts:
Private respondents filed with the MeTC of Q.C. a complaint against
petitioners and Wood Crest Residents Assoc., Inc., for accionreivindicatoria,
quieting of title and damages, with prayer for preliminary injunction. Private
respondents alleged that subject property located in Batasan Hills, Quezon
City, with an assessed value of P32,100.00, was titled in the name of spouses
Apolonio and ValerianaDionisio; but petitioners, with malice and evident bad
faith, claimed that they were the owners of a parcel of land that encompasses
and covers subject property.
Private respondents had allegedly been
prevented from entering, possessing and using subject property. It was further
alleged in the Complaint that petitioners' Transfer Certificate of Title over their
alleged property was spurious. Private respondents then prayed that they be
declared the sole and absolute owners of the subject property; that petitioners
be ordered to surrender possession of subject property to them; that
petitioners and Wood Crest and/or its members be ordered to pay actual and
moral damages, and attorney's fees.

Yes they did.

To put the matter to rest, the Court reiterates the ruling in Heirs of
Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, to wit:
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance of
or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that
fall under the classification of cases that involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein.
Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on
jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of
pecuniary estimation, under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, or one involving title to
property under Section 19(2). The distinction between the two classes became
crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, which
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include
"all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein
does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses and costs." Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction
over cases the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real

property or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided
between the first and second level courts, with the assessed value of the real
property involved as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced to
"unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier
administration of justice."
Clearly, the RTC and the CA ruled correctly that the MeTC had
jurisdiction over private respondents' complaint for AccionReivindicatoria.