RUSSEL VS.

VESTIL
304 SCRA 738; GR No. 119347, March 17, 1999
(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 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.

Quinagoran v CA
Facts:
The heirs of Juan dela Cruz, represented by Senen dela Cruz filed a Complaint
for Recovery of Portion of Registered Land with Compensation and Damages
against Victorino Quinagoran before the RTC Cagayan. They alleged that they
are the co-owners of a a parcel of land at Centro, Piat, Cagayan, which they
inherited from the late Juan dela Cruz.
Quinagoran started occupying a house on the north-west portion of the
property, by tolerance of the heirs. The heirs asked petitioner to remove the
house as they planned to construct a commercial building on the property but
petitioner refused, claiming ownership over the lot.
The heirs prayed for the reconveyance and surrender of the disputed lot and to
be paid the amount of P5,000.00 monthly until the property is vacated.
Quinagoran filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the case under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which expanded
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to include
all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein which does not exceed P20,000.00. He argued that since the
lot which he owns adjacent to the contested property has an assessed value of
P1,730, the assessed value of the lot under controversy would not be more
than the said amount. He likewise avers that it is an indispensable
requirement that the complaint should allege the assessed value of the
property involved.
The heirs maintain that the contention of petitioner in his Motion to Dismiss
before the RTC that the assessed value of the disputed lot is below P20,000.00
is based on the assessed value of an adjacent property and no documentary
proof was shown to support the said allegation. It also contended that the tax
declaration which petitioner presented, together with his Supplemental Reply
before the CA, and on the basis of which he claims that the disputed property's
assessed value is only P551.00, should also not be given credence as the said
tax declaration reflects the amount of P56,100.or the entire property.
The RTC denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the action is
accion publicciana and therefore, its jurisdiction lies in the RTC, regardless of
the value of the property. The CA affirmed decision of the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession
regardless of the value of the property involved?
Held:
NO. Jurisdiction lies in the MTC.

The doctrine that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies
with the RTC regardless of the value of the property -- no longer holds true. As
things now stand, a distinction must be made between those properties the
assessed value of which is below P20,000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and
P50,000.00, if within.
Republic Act No. 7691 expressly provides:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of, real property,
or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
In Atuel v. Valdez, the Court likewise expressly stated that:
Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general
jurisdiction. Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original
jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property.
However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed
P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the
municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of
real property.
In the case, Quinagoran maintains that there should be such an
allegation of the assessed value of the real property to determine jurisdiction.
However, nowhere in said complaint was the assessed value of the subject
property ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the face of the
complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the
respondents. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of
the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original
and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The courts cannot take
judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land.
Considering that the respondents failed to allege in their complaint the
assessed value of the subject property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the
motion to dismiss. Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void.
The CA also erred in affirming the RTC.