G.R. No. 192649 June 22, 2011HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.R-II BUILER! INC. "n# NATIONAL HOU!INGAUTHORITY, Respondents.R E S O L U T I O NPERE$, J.:BeforetheCourtare:(atheEntr! of"ppearan#efi$ed%!"tt!.Lope E. &e%$e of the To'uero E(#onde )ana$an* &e%$e La+ Offi#esas#o$$a%oratin*#ounse$ for respondent R,II Bui$ders, In#. (R,IIBui$ders, +ithpra!erto%efurnisheda$$ p$eadin*s, noti#esandother #ourt pro#esses at its *iven address- and (% the .otion fi$ed%!R,II Bui$ders, see/in*there#onsiderationof Court0sde#isiondated 1 )ar#h 2344 on the fo$$o+in* *rounds:4IT5E 5ONOR"BLE COURT ERRE6IN RULIN7 T5"T RTC)"NIL", BR"NC522, 5"6NO8URIS6ICTIONO9ERT5EPRESENT C"SE SINCE RTC,)"NIL", BR"NC5 2:, TO ;5IC5T5E INST"NT C"SE ;"S INITI"LL< R"&&LE6 5"6 NO"UT5ORIT< TO 5E"R T5E C"SE BEIN7 " SPECI"LCO))ERCI"L COURT.II.T5E 5ONOR"BLE COURT ERRE6IN RULIN7T5"T T5ECORRECT 6OC=ET &EES ;ERE NOT P"I6.In ur*in* the reversa$ of the Court0s de#ision, R,II Bui$ders ar*uesthat it fi$ed its #o.p$aint +ith the )ani$a RTC +hi#h is undou%ted$!vested+ith >urisdi#tionovera#tions +herethesu%>e#t.atterisin#apa%$e of pe#uniar! esti.ation- that throu*h no fau$t of its o+n,said#o.p$aint+asraff$edtoBran#h2:, thedesi*natedSpe#ia$Co..er#ia$ Court (SCC tas/ed to hear intra,#orporate#ontroversies-thatdespitethedeter.inationsu%se'uent$! .ade%! Bran#h 2: of the )ani$a RTC that the #ase did not invo$ve anintra,#orporatedispute, the)ani$aRTCdidnot $ose>urisdi#tionoverthesa.eanditsE(e#utive8ud*e#orre#t$!dire#teditsre,raff$in* to Bran#h 22 of the sa.e Court- that the re,raff$e and?ora.end.ent of p$eadin*s do not affe#t a #ourt0s >urisdi#tion +hi#h,on#e a#'uired, #ontinues unti$ the #ase is fina$$! ter.inated- thatsin#e its ori*ina$ Co.p$aint, ".ended and Supp$e.enta$ Co.p$aintand Se#ond ".ended Co.p$aint a$$ pri.ari$! sou*ht thenu$$ifi#ationof the6eedof "ssi*n.ent andConve!an#e(6"Ctransferrin*the"ssetPoo$ infavorof petitioner5o.e7uarant!Corporation(57C, the su%>e#t .atter of the #ase is#$ear$! one+hi#hisin#apa%$eof pe#uniar!esti.ation- and, that the#ourterred in ho$din* that the #ase +as a rea$ a#tion and that it evadedthe pa!.ent of the #orre#t do#/et fees #o.puted on the %asis ofthe assessed va$ue of the rea$ties in the "sset Poo$.R,II Bui$ders0 .otion is %ereft of .erit.The re#ord sho+s that, +ith the raff$e of R,II Bui$ders@#o.p$aint%efore Bran#h 2: of the )ani$a RTC and said #ourt@s *rant of theapp$i#ationfor te.porar!restrainin*order in#orporatedtherein,57C sou*ht a pre$i.inar! hearin* of its affir.ative defenses +hi#hin#$uded, a.on* other *rounds, $a#/ of >urisdi#tion and i.propervenue. It appears that, at said pre$i.inar! hearin*, it +asesta%$ished that R,II Bui$ders@#o.p$aint did not invo$ve an intra,#orporate dispute and that, even if it is, venue +as i.proper$! $aidsin#e none of the parties .aintained its prin#ipa$ offi#e in )ani$a.;hi$e it is true, therefore, that R,II Bui$ders had no hand in theraff$in* of the #ase, it #annot %e *ainsaid that Bran#h 2: of the RTC)ani$a had no >urisdi#tion over the #ase. Rather than orderin* thedis.issa$ of the #o.p$aint, ho+ever, said #ourt issued the 28anuar! 233A order erroneous$! orderin* the re,raff$e of the #ase.In "t+e$ v. Con#ep#ion Pro*ressive "sso#iation, In#.2 and Re!es v.5on. Re*iona$ Tria$ Court of )a/ati, Bran#h4:2B+hi#hinvo$vedSCCs tr!in* and?or de#idin* #ases +hi#h +ere found to %e #ivi$ innature, this Court si*nifi#ant$! ordered the dis.issa$ of the#o.p$aint for $a#/ of >urisdi#tion instead of si.p$! dire#tin* the re,raff$e of the #ase to another %ran#h.Even then, the 'uestion of the )ani$a RTC0s >urisdi#tion over the#ase is tied up +ith R,II Bui$der0s pa!.ent of the #orre#t do#/etfees +hi#h shou$d %e paid in fu$$ upon the fi$in* of the p$eadin* orother app$i#ation +hi#h initiates an a#tion or pro#eedin*.: ;hi$e itis, #onse'uent$!,truethat>urisdi#tion, on#ea#'uired, #annot%eeasi$! ousted,C it is e'ua$$! sett$ed that a #ourt a#'uires >urisdi#tionovera#aseon$!uponthepa!.entof thepres#ri%edfi$in*anddo#/et fees.D "$read! i.p$i#it fro. the fi$in* of the #o.p$aint in theCit!of )ani$a+heretherea$ties#o.prisin*the"sset Poo$ are$o#ated, the fa#t that the #ase is a rea$ a#tion is evident fro. thea$$e*ations of R,II Bui$ders@ ori*ina$ Co.p$aint, ".ended andSupp$e.enta$ Co.p$aint andSe#ond".endedCo.p$aint +hi#hnot on$! sou*ht the nu$$ifi#ation of the 6"C in favor of 57C %ut,.ore i.portant$!, pra!ed for the transfer of possession of and?or#ontro$ of the properties in the "sset Poo$. Its #urrent protestationsto the #ontrar! not+ithstandin*, no $ess than R,II Bui$ders E in itsopposition to 57C@s .otion to dis.iss E ad.itted that the #ase is area$ a#tion as it affe#ts tit$e to or possession of rea$ propert! or aninterest therein.F 5avin* on$! paid do#/et fees #orrespondin* to ana#tion +here the su%>e#t .atter is in#apa%$e of pe#uniar!esti.ation, R,II Bui$ders #annot e(pedient$! #$ai. that >urisdi#tionover the #ase had a$read! atta#hed.In De Leon v. Court of Appeals,A this Court had, of #ourse, ru$edthat a #ase for res#ission or annu$.ent of #ontra#t is notsus#epti%$e of pe#uniar! esti.ationa$thou*h it .a! eventua$$!resu$t in the re#over! of rea$ propert!. Ta/in* into #onsideration thea$$e*ations and the nature of the re$ief sou*ht in the #o.p$aint inthe su%se'uent #aseof Serranov. 6e$i#a,1 ho+ever,this Courtdeter.ined the e(isten#e of a rea$ a#tion and ordered the pa!.entof the appropriate do#/et fees for a #o.p$aint for #an#e$$ation ofsa$e +hi#h pra!ed for %oth per.anent and pre$i.inar! in>un#tionai.ed at the restoration of possession of the $and in $iti*ation is area$ a#tion. In dis#ountin* the apparent #onf$i#t in said ru$in*s, theCourt +ent on to ru$e as fo$$o+s in Ru%! She$ter Bui$ders and Rea$t!6eve$op.ent Corporation v. 5on. Pa%$o C, &or.aran,43 to +it:The Court ( ( ( does not per#eive a #ontradi#tion%et+een Serrano and the Spouses De Leon. The Court #a$$sattention to the fo$$o+in* state.ent in Spouses De Leon: G" revie+of the>urispruden#eof thisCourt indi#atesthat indeter.inin*+hether an a#tion is one the su%>e#t .atter of +hi#h is not #apa%$eof pe#uniar! esti.ation, this Court has adopted the #riterion of firstas#ertainin* the nature of the prin#ipa$ a#tion or re.ed! sou*ht.GNe#essari$!,thedeter.ination.ust %edoneona#ase,to,#ase%asis, dependin*onthefa#tsand#ir#u.stan#esof ea#h. ;hatpetitioner #onvenient$!i*nores is that in Spouses DeLeon, thea#tion therein that private respondents instituted %efore theRTC +as Gso$e$! for annu$.ent or res#issionG of the #ontra#t of sa$eover a rea$ propert!. There appeared to %e no transfer of tit$e orpossession to the adverse part! ( ( (. (Unders#orin*Supp$ied1avvphi15avin* #onsistent$! sou*ht the transfer of possession and #ontro$ ofthe properties #o.prisin* the "sset Poo$ over and a%ove thenu$$ifi#ation of the 6eed of Conve!an#e in favor of 57C, it fo$$o+sR,II Bui$ders shou$d have paid the #orre#t and appropriate do#/etfees, #o.puted a##ordin* to the assessed va$ue thereof. This .u#h+as dire#ted in the 41 )a! 233A Order issued %! Bran#h 22 of the)ani$aRTC+hi#hdeter.inedthatthe#aseisarea$ a#tionandad.itted the ".ended and Supp$e.enta$Co.p$aint R,II Bui$derssu%se'uent$! fi$ed in the #ase.44 In o%vious evasion of said dire#tiveto pa! the #orre#t do#/et fees, ho+ever, R,II Bui$ders +ithdre+ its".ended and Supp$e.enta$ Co.p$aint and, in $ieu thereof, fi$ed itsSe#ond".endedCo.p$aint +hi#h, +hi$ede$etin*its #ausesofa#tion for a##ountin* and #onve!an#e of tit$e to and?or possessionof the entire "sset Poo$, neverthe$ess pra!ed for its appoint.ent asRe#eiver of the properties #o.prisin* the sa.e. In the $and.ar/#ase of )an#hester 6eve$op.ent Corporation v. Court of"ppea$s,42 this Court ru$ed that >urisdi#tion over an! #ase isa#'uired on$! upon the pa!.ent of the pres#ri%ed do#/et fee +hi#his %oth.andator! and >urisdi#tiona$. "$thou*h it is truethat the)an#hester Ru$e does not app$! despite insuffi#ient fi$in* fees +henthere is no intent to defraud the *overn.ent,4BR,II Bui$ders@evident %adfaithshou$d#$ear$!fore#$osethere$a(ationof saidru$e.In addition to the >urisdi#tiona$ and pra*.ati# aspe#ts under$!in*the pa!.ent of the #orre#t do#/et fees +hi#h have a$read! %eendis#ussed in the de#ision sou*ht to %e re#onsidered, it fina$$! %earse.phasiHin* that the "sset Poo$ is #o.prised of *overn.entproperties uti$iHed %! 57C as part of its sin/in* fund, in pursuit ofits .andate as statutor! *uarantor of *overn.ent housin*pro*ra.s. ;ith the adverse #onse'uen#es that #ou$d resu$t fro.the transfer of possessionand#ontro$ of the"sset Poo$, it isi.perative that R,II Bui$ders shou$d %e .ade to pa! the do#/et andfi$in*fees#orrespondin*totheassessedva$ueof theproperties#o.prisin* the sa.e.;5ERE&ORE, the Court reso$ves to:(a NOTE the Entr! of "ppearan#e of "tt!. Lope E. &e%$e ofTu'uero E(#onde )ana$an* &e%$e La+ Offi#es as#o$$a%oratin* #ounse$ for respondent R,II Bui$ders, In#.- and6EN