Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

CIVPRO DIGEST| RAMIREZ,LC

SECOND DIVISION ISSUE:


G.R. No. L-36098 January 21, 1983 WON the City Court of Manila Branch II, has jurisdiction over the
ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, petitioner, complaint? NO
vs. JUDGE JOSE B. HERRERA, respondent.
RULING:
TOPIC: JURISDICTION (IF INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION) The action involved in this case is one for specific performance and not for
“The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction` over a sum of money and wherefore incapable of pecuniary estimation
the following cases: xxxx because what PR seeks is the performance of PET’s obligation under a
1. All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of written contract to make a refund but under certain specific conditions still to
pecuniary estimation” (Sec. 19 of B.P. 129) be proven.

PER CURIAM: In a case for the recovery of a sum of money (as the collection of a debt)
On August 14, 1969, petitioner(PET) and private respondent(PR) the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation because the
entered into an agreement for a consideration of P55,430.00 wherein obligation to pay the debt is not conditioned upon any specific fact or matter.
the PET agreed to sell to the PR a parcel of land with a special
condition that should PR as purchaser complete the construction “But when a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the
including the painting of his house on said lot within two (2) years from other party a sum of money upon compliance by the latter
August 14, 1969, PET, as owner, has agreed to refund to PR the of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith
amount of P10.00 per square meter. may what is legally due him under the written contract be
When the special condition was fulfilled, PR, on May 17, 1971 demanded, the action is one not capable of pecuniary
notified in writing the PET and requested for his refund amounting to estimation.”
P4,820.00.
Upon failure of petitioner to pay his obligation, PR, on May 6, 1972 The payment of a sum of money is only incidental which can
filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with the City Court only be ordered after a determination of certain acts the
of Manila, Branch II, against PET. performance of which being the more basic issue to be
o A motion to dismiss was filed by PET on grounds of: inquired into.
 Lack of jurisdiction, failure of the complaint to state a cause
of action and improper venue. Although PR’s complaint in the court a quo is designated as one for a sum
o City Court Judge Jose B. Herrera in his order held in abeyance of money and damages, an analysis of all the factual allegations of the
the resolution on the motion until after the trial of the case on the complaint shows that what PR seeks is the performance of PET’s obligation
merits. under the written contract to make the refund, but only after proof of having
A reconsideration of the said order having been denied, PET on himself fulfilled the conditions that will give rise to petitioner's obligation, a
October 12, 1972 filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Branch XXVII, a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction.
A motion to dismiss was filed by PR, but the petition was dismissed In view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to reverse the order appealed
on the ground that the claim of PR in his complaint, being less than from and the complaint filed with the City Court of Manila, Branch II, is
P10,000.00, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the city court. hereby ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed the present petition and argues among others that:
(a) the action is for specific performance of contract; and
(b) actions in which the subject of litigation is not capable of pecuniary
estimation such as complaints for specific performance of contract are
exclusively cognizable by the Court of First Instance.

S-ar putea să vă placă și