remedial law 1 review case digests

7/18/2019 Remedial Law 1 Review Case Digests

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remedial-law-1-review-case-digests 1/9

Remedial law 1 review case digests

G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999

EULALIA RUSSELL, PUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T. REALES, APITACIOTAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO, JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINOTAUTHO, FELI TAUTHO, !ILLIAM TAUTHO, AND MARIL"N PERALES, petitioners,vs.HONORA#LE AUGUSTINE A. $EST%L, ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO, JUANITA MENDO&A,

DOMINGO #ANTILAN, RAUL #ATALUNA AND ARTEMIO CA#ATINGAN, respondent.

FACTS' Petitioners fled a complaint against private respondents, denominated “DECLARATI! " !#LLIT$

A!D PARTITI!%. T&e complaint alleged t&at petitioners are co'owners o( a parcel o( land sit)ated in Liloan,

Ce*). T&e land was previo)sl+ owned *+ t&e spo)ses Casimero Ta)t&o and Cesaria Ta)t&o. #pon t&e deat& o(

Casimero Ta)t&o and Cesaria Ta)t&o, t&eir land located at Lot 1-, Liloan Ce*) was in&erited *+ t&eir legal

&eirs, &erein petitioners and private respondents. T&e lot &ad remained )ndivided )ntil t&e+ discovered a

p)*lic doc)ment w&ic& is a declaration o( &eirs and deed o( confrmation o( a previo)s oral agreement, o(

partition, a/ecting t&e land e0ec)ted *+ and among t&e respondents w&ere*+ respondents divided t&e

propert+ among t&emselves to t&e e0cl)sion o( petitioners w&o are entitled t&ereto as legal &eirs also. n

eptem*er 23, 1-, petitioners fled a complaint against private respondents wit& t&e RTC o( 4anda)e Cit+,

5ranc& 6, doc7eted as Civil Case !o. 4A!'2286. T&e+ claimed t&at t&e doc)ment was (alse and per9)rio)s

as t&e private respondents were not t&e onl+ &eirs and t&at no oral partition o( t&e propert+ &ad *een made

*etween t&e &eirs. T&e complaint see7 to declare t&e doc)ment n)ll and void and an order e iss)ed to

partition t&e land among all t&e &eirs. n !ovem*er 2-, 1-, private respondents fled a 4otion to Dismiss

t&e complaint on t&e *asis o( lac7 o( 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC over t&e nat)re o( t&e case as t&e total assessed

val)e o( t&e land is P&p6,:::.:: w&ic& )nder section ;; ;: o( 5atas PAm*ansa 5lg. 12, as amended *+

R.A. 81, (alls wit&in t&e e0cl)sive 9)risdiction o( t&e 4)nicipal Circ)it Trial Co)rt o( Liloan. Petitioners fled

an pposition to t&e 4otion to Dismiss sa+ing t&at t&e RTC &as 9)risdiction over t&e case since t&e action is

one w&ic& is incapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation wit&in t&e contemplation o( ection 1<l= o( 5.P. 12, as

amended.

ISSUE' >&et&er t&e RTC &as 9)risdiction over t&e nat)re o( t&e civil case.

HELD' $es. T&e complaint fled *e(ore t&e Regional Trial Co)rt is one incapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation andt&ere(ore wit&in t&e 9)risdiction o( said co)rt.

In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, t&e )preme Co)rt r)led t&at?

In determining w&et&er an action is one t&e s)*9ect matter o( w&ic& is not capa*le o( pec)niar+ estimationt&is Co)rt &as adopted t&e criterion o( frst ascertaining t&e nat)re o( t&e principal action or remed+so)g&t. I( it is primaril+ (or t&e recover+ o( a s)m o( mone+, t&e claim is considered capa*le o( pec)niar+estimation, and w&et&er 9)risdiction is in t&e m)nicipal co)rts or in t&e co)rts o( frst instance wo)ld dependon t&e amo)nt o( t&e claim. @owever, w&ere t&e *asic iss)e is somet&ing ot&er t&an t&e rig&t to recover as)m o( mone+, w&ere t&e mone+ claim is p)rel+ incidental to, or a conse)ence o(, t&e principal relie( so)g&t, t&is Co)rt &as considered s)c& actions as cases w&ere t&e s)*9ect o( t&e litigation ma+ not *e

estimated in terms o( mone+, and are cogniBa*le e0cl)sivel+ *+ co)rts o( frst instance <now Regional TrialCo)rts=.

T&e main p)rpose o( petitioners in fling t&e complaint is to declare n)ll and void t&e doc)ment in )estion.>&ile t&e complaint also pra+s (or t&e partition o( t&e propert+, t&is is 9)st incidental to t&e main action,w&ic& is t&e declaration o( n)llit+ o( t&e doc)ment a*ove'descri*ed. It is a0iomatic t&at 9)risdiction over t&es)*9ect matter o( a case is con(erred *+ law and is determined *+ t&e allegations in t&e complaint and t&ec&aracter o( t&e relie( so)g&t, irrespective o( w&et&er t&e plainti/ is entitled to all or some o( t&e claimsasserted t&erein.

G.R. No. 1()1*1 D+c+-+r 1*, *7

HEIRS OF $ALERIANO S. CONCHA, SR. NAMEL"' TERESITA CONCHA/PARAN, $ALERIANO P.

CONCHA, JR., RAMON P. CONCHA, EDUARDO P. CONCHA, REPRESENTED #" HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN,RE"NALDO P. CONCHA, AL#ERTO P. CONCHA, #ERNARDO P. CONCHA a0 GLORIA, petitioners,vs.




SPOUSES GREGORIO J. LUMOCSO1 a0 #IEN$ENIDA GU"A, CRISTITA J. LUMOCSO $DA. DE DAAN,AND SPOUSES JACINTO J. LUMOCSO a0 #AL#INA T. LUMOCSO,* respondents.

FACTS' Petitioners, &eirs o( spo)ses Dorotea and aleriano Conc&a, r. claim to *e t&e rig&t()l owners o( t&elots sit)ated in Cogon, Dipolog Cit+ )nder t&e P)*lic Land Act. Respondent si*lings regorio L)mocso are t&epatent &olders and registered owners o( t&e s)*9ect lots. T&e records s&ows t&at aleriano r., and &isc&ildren fled a complaint (or Reconve+ance andor Ann)lment o( Title wit& Damages against po)ses

regorio L)mocso and 5ienvenida )+a. T&e+ so)g&t to ann)l "ree Patent and t&e corresponding riginalCertifcate o( Title iss)ed in t&e name o( “regorio L)mocso%.

Respondents moved (or t&e dismissal o( t&e respective cases against t&em on t&e same gro)nds o(? <a= lac7o( 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC over t&e s)*9ect matters o( t&e complaintsF <*= (ail)re to state ca)ses o( action (orreconve+anceF <c= prescriptionF and <d= waiver, a*andonment, lac&es and estoppels. n t&e iss)e o(

9)risdiction, respondents contended t&at t&e RTC &as no 9)risdiction over t&e complaints p)rs)ant to ection1<2= o( 5P 12 as amended *+ RA 81, as in eac& case, t&e assessed val)e o( t&e s)*9ect lots are less t&an2:7. Petitioners opposed, contending t&at t&e instant case involve actions t&e s)*9ect matters o( w&ic& areincapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation w&ic&, )nder ection 1<1= as amended *+ RA 81 (all wit&in t&ee0cl)sive original 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC. T&e+ also contended t&at t&e+ &ave two main ca)ses o( action? (orreconve+ance and (or recover+ o( t&e val)e o( t&e trees (elled *+ respondents. @ence t&e totalit+ o( t&eclaims m)st *e considered w&ic&, i( comp)ted, allegedl+ (all+s wit&in t&e 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC.

ISSUE' >&et&er t&e RTC &as no 9)risdiction over t&e complaints as in eac& case, t&e assessed val)e o( t&es)*9ect lots are less t&an 2:7.

HELD' G)risdiction over t&e s)*9ect matter is t&e power to &ear and determine cases o( t&e general class tow&ic& t&e proceedings in )estion *elong. It is con(erred *+ law and an o*9ection *ased on t&is gro)ndcannot *e waived *+ t&e parties. To determine w&et&er a co)rt &as 9)risdiction over t&e s)*9ect matter o( acase, it is important to determine t&e nat)re o( t&e ca)se o( action and o( t&e relie( so)g&t. T&e trial co)rtcorrectl+ &eld t&at t&e instant cases involve actions (or reconve+ance. An action (or reconve+ance respectst&e decree o( registration as incontroverti*le *)t see7s t&at trans(er o( propert+, w&ic& &as *een wrong()ll+or erroneo)sl+ registered in ot&er personsH names, to its rig&t()l and legal owners, or to t&ose w&o claim to&ave a *etter rig&t. T&ere is no special gro)nd (or an action (or reconve+ance. It is eno)g& t&at t&eaggrieved part+ &as a legal claim on t&e propert+ to t&at o( t&e registered owner and t&at t&e propert+ &as

not +et passed to t&e &ands o( an innocent p)rc&aser (or val)e.

5eing in t&e nat)re o( actions (or reconve+ance or actions to remove clo)d on oneHs title, t&e applica*le lawto determine w&ic& co)rt &as 9)risdiction is ec 1<2= o( 5P 12 as amended *+ RA 81, viB?

ection 1. G)risdiction in Civil Cases.'' Regional Trial Co)rts s&all e0ercise e0cl)sive original 9)risdiction? 0 0 0

<2= In all civil actions w&ic& involve t&e title to, or possession o(, real propert+, or an+ interest t&erein,w&ere t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ involved e0ceeds Twent+ t&o)sand pesos <P2:,:::.::= or(or civil actions in 4etro 4anila, w&ere s)c& val)e e0ceeds "i(t+ t&o)sand pesos <P6:,:::.::= e0ceptactions (or (orci*le entr+ into and )nlaw()l detainer o( lands or *)ildings, original 9)risdiction overw&ic& is con(erred )pon t&e 4etropolitan Trial Co)rts, 4)nicipal Trial Co)rts, and 4)nicipal Circ)it

Trial Co)rtsF

@ence, t&e 4TC clearl+ &as 9)risdiction over t&e instant cases.

Petitioners contention t&at t&is case is one t&at is incapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation )nder t&e e0cl)siveoriginal 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC p)rs)ant to ection 1<1= o( 5.P. 12 is erroneo)s.

In a n)m*er o( cases, we &ave &eld t&at actions (or reconve+ance -- o( or (or cancellation o( title-6 to or to)iet title- over real propert+ are actions t&at (all )nder t&e classifcation o( cases t&at involve Jtitle to, orpossession o(, real propert+, or an+ interest t&erein.J

T&e original te0t o( ection 1<2= o( 5.P. 12 as well as its (orer)nner, ection --<*= o( R.A. 2,-8 as

amended, gave t&e RTCs <(ormerl+ co)rts o( frst instance= +2c%56+ or550a% 8r55c5o0 :;5<0 a%% c565%ac5o0 =h5ch 506o%6+ h+ 5%+ o, or >o+5o0 o?, r+a% >ro>+r@, or a0@ 50+r+ h+r+50, e0ceptactions (or (orci*le entr+ into and )nlaw()l detainer o( lands or *)ildings, original 9)risdiction over w&ic& iscon(erred )pon 4etropolitan Trial Co)rts, K4TCs, and 4)nicipal Circ)it Trial Co)rts <con(erred )pon t&e cit+and m)nicipal co)rts )nder R.A. 2, as amended=.J T&)s, )nder t&e old law, t&ere was no s)*stantial e/ect

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_158121_2007.html#fnt1
















on 9)risdiction w&et&er a case is one, t&e s)*9ect matter o( w&ic& was incapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation,)nder ection 1<1= o( 5.P. 12 or one involving title to propert+ )nder ection 1<2=. T&e distinction *etweent&e two classes *ecame cr)cial wit& t&e amendment introd)ced *+ R.A. !o. 81 -3 in 1- w&ic& e0pandedt&e e0cl)sive original 9)risdiction o( t&e frst level co)rts to incl)de Jall civil actions w&ic& involve title to, orpossession o(, real propert+, or an+ interest t&erein =h+r+ h+ a++ 6a%+ o? h+ >ro>+r@ or50+r+ h+r+50 o+ 0o +2c++ T=+0@ hoa0 >+o P*,.B or, 50 c565% ac5o0 50 M+roMa05%a, =h+r+ ch a++ 6a%+ o+ 0o +2c++ F5?@ hoa0 >+o P(,.B +2c%56+

o? 50+r+, aa+ o? =ha+6+r 50, aor0+@ ?++, %55a5o0 +2>+0+ a0 co.: T&)s,)nder t&e present law, original 9)risdiction over cases t&e s)*9ect matter o( w&ic& involves Jtitle to,possession o(, real propert+ or an+ interest t&ereinJ )nder ection 1<2= o( 5.P. 12 is divided *etween t&efrst and second level co)rts, wit& t&e assessed val)e o( t&e real propert+ involved as t&e *enc&mar7. T&isamendment was introd)ced to J)nclog t&e overloaded doc7ets o( t&e RTCs w&ic& wo)ld res)lt in t&e speedieradministration o( 9)stice.J

Petitioners contention t&at t&e val)e o( t&e trees c)t in t&e s)*9ect properties constit)tes Jan+ interestt&erein <in t&e s)*9ect properties=J t&at s&o)ld *e comp)ted in addition to t&e respective assessed val)es o( t&e s)*9ect properties is )navailing. ection 1<2= o( 5.P. 12, as amended *+ R.A. !o. 81, is clear t&at t&eRTC s&all e0ercise 9)risdiction Jin all civil actions w&ic& involve t&e title to, or possession o(, real propert+, oran+ interest t&erein, =h+r+ h+ a++ 6a%+ o? h+ >ro>+r@ 506o%6+ +2c++ T=+0@ hoa0>+o P*,.B or ?or c565% ac5o0 50 M+ro Ma05%a, =h+r+ ch 6a%+ +2c++ F5?@ hoa0

>+o P(,.B.J It is tr)e t&at t&e recover+ o( t&e val)e o( t&e trees c)t (rom t&e s)*9ect propertiesma+ *e incl)ded in t&e term Jan+ interest t&erein.J @owever, t&e law is emp&atic t&at in determining w&ic&co)rt &as 9)risdiction, it is onl+ t&e assessed val)e o( t&e realt+ involved t&at s&o)ld *e comp)ted. 6- In t&iscase, t&ere is no disp)te t&at t&e assessed val)es o( t&e s)*9ect properties as s&own *+ t&eir ta0declarations are less t&an P2:,:::.::. Clearl+, 9)risdiction over t&e instant cases *elongs not to t&e RTC *)tto t&e 4TC.

G.R. No. 13)4. A>r5% *9, *(

CESAR T. HILARIO, ?or h5+%? a0 a Aor0+@/50/Fac o? I#ARRA, NESTOR, LINA a0 PRESCILLA,a%% r0a+ HILARIO, Petitioners,vs.ALLAN T. SAL$ADOR, Respondents.

HEIRS OF SALUSTIANO SAL$ADOR, 0a+%@, REGIDOR M. SAL$ADOR a0 $IRGINIA SAL$ADOR/LIM,respondents-intervenors.

FACTS' Petitioners &erein are co'owners o( a parcel o( land located in Rom*lon. In 1, t&e+ fled acomplaint wit& t&e RTC against respondent, alleging t&at as co'owners, t&e+ are entitled to possession o( t&elot, and t&at respondent constr)cted &is &o)se t&ereon wit&o)t t&eir 7nowledge and re()sed to vacate t&epropert+ despite demands to do so. T&e+ pra+ed (or t&e private respondent to vacate t&e propert+ andrestore possession t&ereo( to t&em. T&e complaint, &owever, (ailed to allege t&e assessed val)e o( t&e land.!evert&eless, petitioners were a*le to present d)ring t&e trial t&e most recent ta0 declaration, w&ic& s&owst&at t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ was P&p 6,6:.::.

T&e respondent fled a 4otion to Dismiss on t&e gro)nd o( lac7 o( 9)risdiction *eca)se o( t&e (ail)re to allege

t&e val)e o( t&e land. T&e motion was denied.

Respondent t&en fled an Answer, traversing t&e material allegations o( t&e complaint, contending t&atpetitioners &ad no ca)se o( action against &im since t&e propert+ in disp)te was t&e con9)dgal propert+ o( &isgrandparents, t&e spo)ses al)stiano alvador and Concepcion 4aBo'alvador.

T&e RTC r)led (avor o( t&e petitioners. n appeal, t&e CA reversed t&e decision, &olding t&at t&e action wasone (or t&e recover+ o( owners&ip and possession o( real propert+, and t&e “a*sent an+ allegation in t&ecomplaint o( t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+, t&e 4TC &ad e0cl)sive 9)risdiction over t&e action <ec. ;;o( RA 81=. T&e CA t&en ordered t&e reflling o( t&e case in t&e proper co)rt.

ISSUE' >&et&er t&e RTC &as 9)risdiction over t&e action

HELD' No. Petitioner arg)es t&at &e RTC &as 9)risdiction since t&eir action is an action reinvindicatoria, anaction incapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation. T&)s, regardless o( t&e assessed val)e o( t&e s)*9ect propert+,e0cl)sive 9)risdiction (alls wit&in t&e said co)rt. T&is arg)ment is wit&o)t merit.








It *ears stressing t&at t&e nat)re o( t&e action and w&ic& co)rt &as original and e0cl)sive 9)risdiction overt&e same is determined *+ t&e material allegations o( t&e complaint, t&e t+pe o( relie( pra+ed (or *+ t&eplainti/ and t&e law in e/ect w&en t&e action is fled, irrespective o( w&et&er t&e plainti/s are entitled tosome or all o( t&e claims asserted t&erein. 13 T&e caption o( t&e complaint is not determinative o( t&e nat)reo( t&e action. !or does t&e 9)risdiction o( t&e co)rt depend )pon t&e answer o( t&e de(endant or agreemento( t&e parties or to t&e waiver or ac)iescence o( t&e parties.

>e do not agree wit& t&e contention o( t&e petitioners and t&e r)ling o( t&e CA t&at t&e action o( t&epetitioners in t&e RTC was an accion reinvindicatoria. >e fnd and so r)le t&at t&e action o( t&e petitionerswas an accion publiciana, or one (or t&e recover+ o( possession o( t&e real propert+ s)*9ect matter t&ereo(.An accion reinvindicatoria is a s)it w&ic& &as (or its o*9ect t&e recover+ o( possession over t&e real propert+as owner. It involves recover+ o( owners&ip and possession *ased on t&e said owners&ip. n t&e ot&er &and,an accion publiciana is one (or t&e recover+ o( possession o( t&e rig&t to possess. It is also re(erred to as ane9ectment s)it fled a(ter t&e e0piration o( one +ear a(ter t&e occ)rrence o( t&e ca)se o( action or (rom t&e)nlaw()l wit&&olding o( possession o( t&e realt+.

T&e action o( t&e petitioners fled on eptem*er ;, 1 does not involve a claim o( owners&ip over t&epropert+. T&e+ allege t&at t&e+ are co'owners t&ereo(, and as s)c&, entitled to its possession, and t&at t&eprivate respondent, w&o was t&e de(endant, constr)cted &is &o)se t&ereon in 13 wit&o)t t&eir 7nowledgeand re()sed to vacate t&e propert+ despite demands (or &im to do so. T&e+ pra+ed t&at t&e private

respondent vacate t&e propert+ and restore possession t&ereo( to t&em.

>&en t&e petitioners fled t&eir complaint on eptem*er ;, 1, R.A. !o. 81 was alread+ in e/ect. ection;;<;= o( t&e law provides?

ec. ;;. G)risdiction o( 4etropolitan Trial Co)rts, 4)nicipal Trial Co)rts and 4)nicipal Circ)it Trial Co)rts inCivil Cases. M 4etropolitan Trial Co)rts, 4)nicipal Trial Co)rts and 4)nicipal Circ)it Trial Co)rts s&all e0ercise?

N

<;= E0cl)sive original 9)risdiction in all civil actions w&ic& involve title to, or possession o(, real propert+, oran+ interest t&erein w&ere t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ or interest t&erein does not e0ceed Twent+

T&o)sand Pesos <P2:,:::.::= or, in civil actions in 4etro 4anila, w&ere s)c& assessed val)e does not e0ceed"i(t+ T&o)sand Pesos <P6:,:::.::= e0cl)sive o( interest, damages o( w&atever 7ind, attorne+Hs (ees, litigatione0penses and costs? Provided, T&at in cases o( land not declared (or ta0ation p)rposes, t&e val)e o( s)c&propert+ s&all *e determined *+ t&e assessed val)e o( t&e ad9acent lots.

ection 1<2= o( t&e law, li7ewise, provides t&at?

ec. 1. Jurisdiction in civil cases. M T&e Regional Trial Co)rt s&all e0ercise e0cl)sive original 9)risdiction?

N

<2= In all civil actions, w&ic& involve t&e title to, or possession o(, real propert+, or an+ interest t&erein, w&eret&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ involved e0ceeds Twent+ T&o)sand Pesos <P2:,:::.::= or, (or civil actions

in 4etro 4anila, w&ere s)c& val)e e0ceeds "i(t+ T&o)sand Pesos <P6:,:::.::= e0cept actions (or (orci*leentr+ into and )nlaw()l detainer o( lands or *)ildings, original 9)risdiction over w&ic& is con(erred )pon t&e4etropolitan Trial Co)rts, 4)nicipal Trial Co)rts, and 4)nicipal Circ)it Trial Co)rts.

T&e 9)risdiction o( t&e co)rt over an action involving title to or possession o( land is now determined by theassessed value of the said property and not the market value thereof . T&e assessed val)e o( real propert+ ist&e (air mar7et val)e o( t&e real propert+ m)ltiplied *+ t&e assessment level. It is s+non+mo)s to ta0a*leval)e.2: T&e (air mar7et val)e is t&e price at w&ic& a propert+ ma+ *e sold *+ a seller, w&o is not compelledto sell, and *o)g&t *+ a *)+er, w&o is not compelled to *)+.

Even a c)rsor+ reading o( t&e complaint will s&ow t&at it does not contain an allegation stating t&e assessedval)e o( t&e propert+ s)*9ect o( t&e complaint.21 T&e co)rt cannot ta7e 9)dicial notice o( t&e assessed ormar7et val)e o( lands.22 A*sent an+ allegation in t&e complaint o( t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+, it

cannot t&)s *e determined w&et&er t&e RTC or t&e 4TC &ad original and e0cl)sive 9)risdiction over t&epetitionersH action.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_160384_2005.html#fnt18












>e note t&at d)ring t&e trial, t&e petitioners add)ced in evidence Ta0 Declaration !o. 36:'A, s&owing t&att&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ in 11 was P6,6:.::. T&e petitioners, &owever, did not *ot&er toadd)ce in evidence t&e ta0 declaration containing t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ w&en t&e+ fled t&eircomplaint in 1. Even ass)ming t&at t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ in 11 was t&e same in 16 or1, t&e 4TC, and not t&e RTC &ad 9)risdiction over t&e action o( t&e petitioners since t&e case involved titleto or possession o( real propert+ wit& an assessed val)e o( less t&an P2:,:::.::.

!eit&er ma+ t&e petitioners fnd com(ort and solace in ection 1<3= o( 5.P. 5lg. 12, as amended, w&ic&states?

EC. 1. Jurisdiction in civil cases. M Regional Trial Co)rts s&all e0ercise e0cl)sive original 9)risdiction?

N

<3= In all ot&er cases in w&ic& t&e demand, e0cl)sive o( interest, damages o( w&atever 7ind, attorne+s (ees,litigation e0penses, and costs or t&e val)e o( t&e propert+ in controvers+ e0ceeds ne @)ndred T&o)sandPesos <P1::,:::.::= or, in s)c& ot&er cases in 4etro 4anila, w&ere t&e demand, e0cl)sive o( t&e a*ove'mentioned items e0ceeds Two @)ndred T&o)sand Pesos <P2::,:::.::=.

T&e said provision is applica*le onl+ to Jall ot&er casesJ ot&er t&an an action involving title to, or possessiono( real propert+ in w&ic& t&e assessed val)e is t&e controlling (actor in determining t&e co)rtHs 9)risdiction. T&e said damages are merel+ incidental to, or a conse)ence o(, t&e main ca)se o( action (or recover+ o( possession o( real propert+.2

ince t&e RTC &ad no 9)risdiction over t&e action o( t&e petitioners, all t&e proceedings t&erein, incl)ding t&edecision o( t&e RTC, are n)ll and void. T&e complaint s&o)ld per(orce *e dismissed.28

!HEREFORE, t&e petition is DE!IED. T&e assailed Decision and Resol)tion o( t&e Co)rt o( Appeals in CA'.R. C !o. ;8;8 are A""IR4ED. Costs against t&e petitioners.

HEIRS OF GENEROSO SE#E, G.R. No. 174497

AURELIA CENSERO SE#E a0 L"DIA SE#E, P+55o0+r HEIRS OF $ERONICO SE$ILLA a0TECHNOLOG" AND LI$ELIHOOD RESOURCE CENTER, R+>o0+0.

Oco-+r 1*, *9

FACTS' Plainti/ spo)ses eneroso and A)relia e*e and t&eir da)g&ter, L+dia e*e, <t&e e*es= fled wit&t&e RTC o( Dipolog Cit+ a complaint against de(endants eronico evilla and Tec&nolog+ and Liveli&oodReso)rce Center (or Ann)lment o( Doc)ment, Reconve+ance and Recover+ o( Possession o( two lots, w&ic&&ad a total assessed val)e o( P,1:.:: pl)s damages.

T&e e*es claimed t&at t&e+ owned t&e s)*9ect lot *)t, t&ro)g& (ra)d, de(endant evilla got t&em to signdoc)ments conve+ing t&e lots to &im. In &is Answer, evilla insisted t&at &e *o)g&t t&e lots (rom t&e e*esin a reg)lar manner.

>&ile t&e case was pending, plainti/ eneroso e*e and de(endant eronico evilla died so t&e+ weres)*stit)ted *+ t&eir &eirs as respondents in t&is case.

T&e RTC dismissed t&e case (or lac7 o( 9)risdiction over t&e s)*9ect matter considering t&at t&e )ltimate relie( t&at t&e e*es so)g&t was t&e reconve+ance o( title and possession over two lots t&at &ad a total assessedval)e o( less t&an 2:7.

T&e RTC contended t&at it &as 9)risdiction over s)c& actions w&en t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+e0ceeds 2:7, ot&erwise, 9)risdiction s&all *e wit& t&e frst level co)rts. T&e RTC concl)ded t&at t&e e*ess&o)ld &ave fled t&eir action wit& t&e 4TC o( Dipolog.

ISSUE' >&et&er t&e e*eHs action involving two lots val)ed at less t&an 2:7 (alls wit&in t&e 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC.

HELD' No. T&e action is one involving title to, or possession o(, real propert+ or an+ interest t&erein.








>&et&er a co)rt &as 9)risdiction over t&e s)*9ect matter o( a partic)lar action is determined *+ t&e plainti/sallegations in t&e complaint and t&e principal relie( &e see7s in t&e lig&t o( t&e law t&at apportions t&e

9)risdiction o( co)rts.

An action involving title to real propert+ means t&at t&e plainti/s ca)se o( action is *ased on a claim t&at &eowns s)c& propert+ or t&at &e &as t&e legal rig&ts to &ave e0cl)sive control, possession, en9o+ment, ordisposition o( t&e same.K-8 Title is t&e legal lin7 *etween <1= a person w&o owns propert+ and <2= t&e

propert+ itsel(.

Title is di/erent (rom a certifcate o( title w&ic& is t&e doc)ment o( owners&ip )nder t&e Torrens s+stem o( registration iss)ed *+ t&e government t&ro)g& t&e Register o( Deeds.K- >&ile title is t&e claim, rig&t orinterest in real propert+, a certifcate o( title is t&e evidence o( s)c& claim.

T&e e*es claim owners&ip *eca)se according to t&em, t&e+ never trans(erred owners&ip o( t&e same to

an+one. )c& title, t&e+ insist, &as remained wit& t&em )nto)c&ed t&ro)g&o)t t&e +ears, e0cepting onl+ t&at

in 11 t&e+ constit)ted a real estate mortgage over it in de(endant evillas (avor. T&e e*es alleged t&at

de(endant evilla violated t&eir rig&t o( owners&ip *+ tric7ing t&em into signing doc)ments o( a*sol)te sale,

rat&er t&an 9)st a real estate mortgage to sec)re t&e loan t&at t&e+ got (rom &im. Ass)ming t&at t&e e*es

can prove t&at t&e+ &ave title to or a rig&t()l claim o( owners&ip over t&e two lots, t&e+ wo)ld t&en *e

entitled, frst, to sec)re evidence o( owners&ip or certifcates o( title covering t&e same and, second, topossess and en9o+ t&em. T&e co)rt, in t&is sit)ation, ma+ in t&e e0ercise o( its e)it+ 9)risdiction and wit&o)t

ordering t&e cancellation o( t&e Torrens titles iss)ed to de(endant evilla, direct t&e latter to reconve+ t&e

two lots and t&eir corresponding Torrens titles to t&em as tr)e owners.

T&e present action is, t&ere(ore, not a*o)t t&e declaration o( t&e n)llit+ o( t&e doc)ments or t&e

reconve+ance to t&e e*es o( t&e certifcates o( title covering t&e two lots. T&ese wo)ld merel+ (ollow a(ter

t&e trial co)rt s&all &ave frst resolved t&e iss)e o( w&ic& *etween t&e contending parties is t&e law()l owner

o( s)c& lots, t&e one also entitled to t&eir possession. 5ased on t&e pleadings, t&e )ltimate iss)e is w&et&er

or not de(endant evilla de(ra)ded t&e e*es o( t&eir propert+ *+ ma7ing t&em sign doc)ments o(

conve+ance rat&er t&an 9)st a deed o( real mortgage to sec)re t&eir de*t to &im. T&e action is, t&ere(ore,

a*o)t ascertaining w&ic& o( t&ese parties is t&e law()l owner o( t&e s)*9ect lots, 9)risdiction over w&ic& is

determined *+ t&e assessed val)e o( s)c& lots.

@ere, t&e total assessed val)e o( t&e two lots s)*9ect o( t&e s)it is P,1:.::. Clearl+, t&is amo)nt does not

e0ceed t&e 9)risdictional t&res&old val)e o( P2:,:::.:: f0ed *+ law. T&e ot&er damages t&at t&e e*es claim

are merel+ incidental to t&eir main action and, t&ere(ore, are e0cl)ded in t&e comp)tation o( t&e

9)risdictional amo)nt.

>@ERE"RE, premises considered, t&e petition is DI4IED. T&e rder dated A)g)st 3, 2::, o( t&e

Regional Trial Co)rt o( Dipolog Cit+, 5ranc& , in Civil Case 6-;6, is A""IR4ED.

G.R. No. 14( J%@ **, *9

ANA DE GUIA SAN PEDRO a0 ALEJO DOPEO, Petitioners,vs.HON. FATIMA G. ASDALA, 50 h+r ca>ac5@ a h+ Pr+550 J+ o? h+ R+5o0a% Tr5a% Cor o? +o0 C5@, #ra0ch )7 HON. MANUEL TARO, 50 h5 ca>ac5@ a h+ Pr+550 J+ o? h+M+ro>o%5a0 Tr5a% Cor o? +o0 C5@, #ra0ch 4* a0 h+ HEIRS OF SPOUSES APOLONIO $.DIONISIO a0 $ALERIANA DIONISIO 0a+%@, ALLAN GEORGE R. DIONISIO a0 ELEANOR R.DIONISIO, h+r+50 r+>r++0+ -@ ALLAN GEORGE R. DIONISIOB, Respondents.

FACTS' Private respondents, &eirs o( spo)ses Apolonio and aleriana Dionisio, fled wit t&e 4eTC a complaintagainst petitioners and >ood Crest Residents Association, Inc. (or Accion Reivindicatoria, O)ieting o( Titleand Damages, wit& Pra+er (or Preliminar+ 4andator+ In9)nction. Private respondents alleged t&at s)*9ectpropert+ located in 5atasan @ills, O)eBon Cit+, wit& an assessed val)e o( P;2,1::.::, was titled in t&e nameo( spo)ses Apolonio and aleriana DionisioF *)t petitioners, wit& malice and evident *ad (ait&, claimed t&at

t&e+ were t&e owners o( a parcel o( land t&at encompasses and covers s)*9ect propert+. Private respondents&ad allegedl+ *een prevented (rom entering, possessing and )sing s)*9ect propert+. It was ()rt&er alleged int&e Complaint t&at petitioners Trans(er Certifcate o( Title over t&eir alleged propert+ was sp)rio)s. Privaterespondents t&en pra+ed t&at t&e+ *e declared t&e sole and a*sol)te owners o( t&e s)*9ect propert+F t&at




petitioners *e ordered to s)rrender possession o( s)*9ect propert+ to t&emF t&at petitioners and >ood Crestandor its mem*ers *e ordered to pa+ act)al and moral damages, and attorne+s (ees.

Petitioners, (or t&eir part, fled a 4otion to Dismiss; said complaint on t&e gro)nd t&at t&e 4eTC &ad no 9)risdiction over t&e s)*9ect matter o( t&e action, as t&e s)*9ect o( litigation was incapa*le o( pec)niar+estimation.

T&e 4eTC t&en iss)ed an rder- dated G)l+ -, 2::2 den+ing t&e motion to dismiss, r)ling t&at, )nder 5atasPam*ansa <5.P.= 5lg. 12, as amended, t&e 4eTC &ad e0cl)sive original 9)risdiction over actions involvingtitle to or possession o( real propert+ o( small val)e.

Petitioners 4otion (or Reconsideration o( said rder dated G)l+ -, 2::2 was denied.

Petitioners assailed t&e a(orementioned rder *+ fling a petition (or certiorari wit& t&e Regional Trial Co)rt<RTC= o( O)eBon Cit+, 5ranc& 38. @owever, in its Decision6 dated 4arc& 1:, 2::;, t&e RTC dismissed t&epetition, fnding no grave a*)se o( discretion on t&e part o( t&e 4eTC Presiding G)dge. T&e RTC s)stained t&e4eTC r)ling, stating t&at, in accordance wit& ection ;;<;= o( Rep)*lic Act <R.A.= !o. 81, amending 5.P.5lg. 12, t&e 4eTC &ad 9)risdiction over t&e complaint (or Accion Reivindicatoria, as it involves recover+ o( owners&ip and possession o( real propert+ located in O)eBon Cit+, wit& an assessed val)e not e0ceedingP6:,:::.::. A 4otion (or Reconsideration o( t&e Decision was fled *+ petitioners, *)t was denied in anrder8 dated G)l+ ;, 2::;.

Petitioners t&en fled wit& t&e Co)rt o( Appeals anot&er petition (or certiorari, insisting t&at *ot& t&e 4eTCand RTC acted wit& grave a*)se o( discretion amo)nting to lac7 or e0cess o( 9)risdiction *+ not ordering t&edismissal o( t&e complaint (or Accion Reivindicatoria, (or lac7 o( 9)risdiction over t&e same. In t&e assailed CAResol)tion dated eptem*er 16, 2::;, t&e CA dismissed t&e petition o)trig&t, &olding t&at certiorari was notavaila*le to petitioners as t&e+ s&o)ld &ave availed t&emselves o( t&e remed+ o( appeal. Petitioners motion(or reconsideration o( t&e resol)tion o( dismissal was denied per Resol)tion3 dated G)ne 1, 2::-.

HELD' T&e present Petition (or ertiorari is doomed and s&o)ld not &ave *een entertained (rom t&e ver+*eginning.

T&e settled r)le is t&at appeals (rom 9)dgments or fnal orders or resol)tions o( t&e CA s&o)ld *e *+ a verifedpetition (or review on certiorari, as provided (or )nder R)le -6 o( t&e Revised R)les o( Civil Proced)re. T&)s,in !asiona, Jr. v. ourt of Appeals,1: t&e Co)rt e0po)nded as (ollows?

T&e aggrieved part+ is proscri*ed (rom assailing a decision or fnal order o( t&e CA via R)le 6, *eca)se s)c&reco)rse is proper onl+ i( t&e part+ &as no plain, speed+ and ade)ate remed+ in t&e co)rse o( law. In t&iscase, petitioner &ad an ade)ate remed+, namel+, a petition (or review on certiorari )nder R)le -6 o( t&eR)les o( Co)rt. A petition (or review on certiorari, not a special civil action (or certiorari was, t&ere(ore, t&ecorrect remed+.

0 0 0 0

ettled is t&e r)le t&at w&ere appeal is availa*le to t&e aggrieved part+, t&e special civil action (or certiorari

will not *e entertained M remedies o( appeal and certiorari are m)t)all+ e0cl)sive, not alternative ors)ccessive. @ence, certiorari is not and cannot *e a s)*stit)te (or a lost appeal, especiall+ i( ones ownnegligence or error in ones c&oice o( remed+ occasioned s)c& loss or lapse. ne o( t&e re)isites o( certiorari is t&at t&ere *e no availa*le appeal or an+ plain, speed+ and ade)ate remed+. !h+r+ a0 a>>+a%=a a6a5%a-%+, a 50 h5 ca+, c+r5orar5 =5%% 0o >ro>+r, +6+0 5? h+ ro0 h+r+?or 5 ra6+a-+ o? 5cr+5o0. Petitioners resort to t&is Co)rt *+ Petition (or Certiorari was a (atal proced)ral error,and t&e instant petition m)st, t&ere(ore, (ail.11

"or t&e ver+ same reason given a*ove, t&e CA, t&ere(ore, acted properl+ w&en it dismissed t&e petition (orcertiorari o)trig&t, on t&e gro)nd t&at petitioners s&o)ld &ave resorted to t&e remed+ o( appeal instead o( certiorari. eril+, t&e present Petition (or ertiorari s&o)ld not &ave *een given d)e co)rse at all.

4oreover, since t&e period (or petitioners to fle a petition (or review on certiorari &ad lapsed *+ t&e time t&e

instant petition was fled, t&e assailed CA Resol)tions &ave attained fnalit+."avvphi"

!evert&eless, 9)st to p)t t&e matter to rest, t&e Co)rt reiterates t&e r)ling in @eirs o( aleriano . Conc&a, r.v. po)ses L)mocso,12 to wit?

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_164560_2009.html#fnt3























In a n)m*er o( cases, we &ave &eld t&at actions (or reconve+ance o( or (or cancellation o( title to or to )iettitle over real propert+ are actions t&at (all )nder t&e classifcation o( cases t&at involve Jtitle to, orpossession o(, real propert+, or an+ interest t&erein.J

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 T&)s, )nder t&e old law, t&ere was no s)*stantial e/ect on 9)risdiction w&et&er a case is one, t&e

s)*9ect matter o( w&ic& was incapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation, )nder ection 1<1= o( 5.P. 12, or oneinvolving title to propert+ )nder ection 1<2=. T&e distinction *etween t&e two classes *ecame cr)cial wit&t&e amendment introd)ced *+ R.A. !o. 81 in 1-, w&ic& e0panded t&e e0cl)sive original 9)risdiction o( t&e frst level co)rts to incl)de Jall civil actions w&ic& involve title to, or possession o(, real propert+, or an+interest t&erein w&ere t&e assessed val)e o( t&e propert+ or interest t&erein does not e0ceed Twent+t&o)sand pesos <P2:,:::.::= or, in civil actions in 4etro 4anila, w&ere s)c& assessed val)e does not e0ceed"i(t+ t&o)sand pesos <P6:,:::.::= e0cl)sive o( interest, damages o( w&atever 7ind, attorne+s (ees, litigatione0penses and costs.J T&)s, 0+r h+ >r++0 %a=, or550a% 8r55c5o0 o6+r ca+ h+ -8+ca+r o? =h5ch 506o%6+ :5%+ o, >o+5o0 o?, r+a% >ro>+r@ or a0@ 50+r+ h+r+50: 0+rS+c5o0 19*B o? #.P. 1*9 5 565+ -+=++0 h+ r a0 +co0 %+6+% cor, =5h h+ a++6a%+ o? h+ r+a% >ro>+r@ 506o%6+ a h+ -+0char. T&is amendment was introd)ced to J)nclog t&eoverloaded doc7ets o( t&e RTCs w&ic& wo)ld res)lt in t&e speedier administration o( 9)stice.J1;

Clearl+, t&e RTC and t&e CA r)led correctl+ t&at t&e 4eTC &ad 9)risdiction over private respondentscomplaint (or Accion Reivindicatoria.

IN $IE! OF THE FOREGOING, t&e petition is DISMISSED (or )tter lac7 o( merit. T&e Resol)tions o( t&eCo)rt o( Appeals in CA'.R. P !o. 8383, dated eptem*er 16, 2::; and G)ne 1, 2::-, are A""IR4ED.

G.R. No. 1)1** No6+-+r *, *13

GENESIS IN$ESTMENT, INC., CE#U JA"A REALT" INC., a0 SPOUSES RHODORA a0 LAM#ERT LIM,Petitioners,vs.HEIRS o? CEFERINO E#ARASA#AL,K NAMEL"' ROGELIO E#ARASA#AL, SPOUSES LIGA"A E.GULIMLIM AND JOSE GULIMLIM, SPOUSES $ISITACION E. CONEJOS a0 ELIAS CONEJOS, #ENTEJERO, POCAS TEJERO, GERTRUDES TEJERO, #ANING HA"O, LACIO E#ARASA#AL a0 JULIETAE#ARASA#AL HEIRS OF FLORO E#ARASA#AL, 0a+%@' SOFIA A#ELONG, PEPITO E#ARASA#ALAND ELPIDIO E#ARASA#AL HEIRS OF LEONA E#ARASA#AL/ APOLLO, 0a+%@' SIL$ESTRA A.MOJELLO a0 MARCELINO APOLLO HEIRS OF PEDRO E#ARASA#AL, 0a+%@' #ONIFACIOE#ARASA#AL, SERGIO E#ARASA#AL a0 JAIME E#ARASA#AL HEIRS o? ISIDRO E#ARASA#AL,NAMEL"' SPOUSES CARLOSA E. NUE$O a0 FORTUNATO NUE$AKK HEIRS o? #ENITO E#ARASA#AL,0a+%@' PAULO #AGAAN, SPOUSES CATALINA A. MARI#AO a0 RENE MARI#AO, $ICENTEA#RINICA a0 PATRON E#ARASA#AL HEIRS o? JULIAN E#ARASA#AL, NAMEL"' ALFREDO #AGAAN, JUAN #AGAAN, A$ELINO #AGAAN, FERDINAND #AGAAN, MAURO #AGAAN, SPOUSES RO!ENA #.LASACA a0 FRANCISCO LACASA,KKK SPOUSES MARIA #. CA#AG a0 EMILIO CA#AG a0 ESTELITA#AGAAN, a%% -+50 r+>r++0+ h+r+50 -@ $ICTOR MOJELLO, FEDERICO #AGAAN a0 PAULINOE#ARASA#AL, a h+5r Aor0+@/50/Fac, Respondents.

FACTS' Respondents fled a complaint wit& t&e RTC o( 5arili, Ce*) (or Declaration o( !)llit+ o( Doc)ments,Recover+ o( &ares, Partition, Damages and Attorne+Hs "ees against Respondents. Petitioners fled a motionto dismiss on t&e gro)nd t&at t&e RTC &as no 9)risdiction as t&e case involves title to or possession o( orinterest in real propert+ wit& an assessed val)e o( P11,:.::. As it does not e0ceed P2:7, t&e actionallegedl+ (ell wit&in t&e 9)risdiction o( t&e 4TC.

RTC granted petitionerHs motion to dismiss. Respondents fled a 4otion (or Partial Reconsideration, arg)ingt&at t&eir complaint consists o( several ca)ses o( action, incl)ding one (or ann)lment o( doc)ments, w&ic& isincapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation and, as s)c&, (alls wit&in t&e 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC. T&e RTC grants t&emotion.

Aggrieved, petitioners fled a petition (or certiorari wit& t&e CA, *)t it was denied.

ISSUE' >&et&er t&e RTC &ad 9)risdiction over t&e case

HELD' "+. It is tr)e t&at one o( t&e ca)ses o( action o( respondents pertains to t&e title, possession andinterest o( eac& o( t&e contending parties over t&e contested propert+, t&e assessed val)e o( w&ic& (alls






wit&in t&e 9)risdiction o( t&e 4TC. @owever, a complete reading o( t&e complaint wo)ld readil+ s&ow t&at,*ased on t&e nat)re o( t&e s)it, t&e allegations t&erein, and t&e relie(s pra+ed (or, t&e action is wit&in t&e

9)risdiction o( t&e RTC.

it is clear (rom t&e records t&at respondents complaint was (or JDeclaration o( !)llit+ o( Doc)ments,Recover+ o( &ares, Partition, Damages and Attorne+s "ees.J In fling t&eir Complaint wit& t&e RTC,respondents so)g&t to recover owners&ip and possession o( t&eir s&ares in t&e disp)ted parcel o( land *+

)estioning t&e d)e e0ec)tion and validit+ o( t&e Deed o( E0tra9)dicial ettlement wit& ale as well as t&e4emorand)m o( Agreement entered into *+ and *etween some o( t&eir co'&eirs and &erein petitioners. Aside(rom pra+ing t&at t&e RTC render 9)dgment declaring as n)ll and void t&e said Deed o( E0tra9)dicialettlement wit& ale and 4emorand)m o( Agreement, respondents li7ewise so)g&t t&e (ollowing? <1=n)llifcation o( t&e Ta0 Declarations s)*se)entl+ iss)ed in t&e name o( petitioner Ce*) Ga+a Realt+, Inc.F <2=partition o( t&e propert+ in litigationF <;= reconve+ance o( t&eir respective s&aresF and <;= pa+ment o( moraland e0emplar+ damages, as well as attorne+s (ees, pl)s appearance (ees.

Clearl+, t&is is a case o( 9oinder o( ca)ses o( action w&ic& compre&ends more t&an t&e iss)e o( partition o( orrecover+ o( s&ares or interest over t&e real propert+ in )estion *)t incl)des an action (or declaration o( n)llit+ o( contracts and doc)ments w&ic& is incapa*le o( pec)niar+ estimation.

it is provided )nder ection 6 <c=, R)le 2 o( t&e R)les o( Co)rt t&at w&ere t&e ca)ses o( action are *etween

t&e same parties *)t pertain to di/erent ven)es or 9)risdictions, t&e 9oinder ma+ *e allowed in t&e RTCprovided one o( t&e ca)ses o( action (alls wit&in t&e 9)risdicti'on o( said co)rt and t&e ven)e lies t&erein.

T&)s, as s&own a*ove, respondents complaint clearl+ (alls wit&in t&e 9)risdiction o( t&e RTC.

>@ERE"RE, t&e petition is DE!IED.

remedial law 1 review case digests

Documents