ARACELI J. CABRERA et al vs. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO et al.

G.R. No. 172293 August 28, 2013

Del Castillo, J.:

FACTS:
Respondents father, Atty. Lorenzo C. Gella executed a private document confirming that he has appointed Severino Cabrera,
husband of Araceli and father of Arnel as administrator of all his real properties located in Antique. When Severino died, petitioners,
with the consent of respondents, took over the administration of the properties. Respondent likewise instructed them to look for
buyers of the properties, allegedly promising them a commission of 5% of the total purchase price of the said properties as
compensation. Petitioners introduced Erlinda Veegas to the respondents who agreed to have the said properties developed by
Erlindas company. However, respondents appointed Erlinda as the new administratrix of the properties and terminated petitioners
services. Petitioners then demanded for their 5% commission to no avail. Hence, they filed a complaint for Collection of Agents
Compensation, Commission and Damages against respondents before the RTC.

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss based on the following grounds: a) lack of jurisdiction, b) failure to state a cause of action and
c) lack of legal capacity of petitioners to sue in behalf of the other heirs of Severino. They argued that for the RTC outside Metro
Manila to acquire jurisdiction, the amount demanded must exceed Php200,000, pursuant to R.A. No. 7691. Since the market value of
the lot is Php3,550,072, 5% thereof is only Php177,506.60, or less than the said jurisdictional amount; thus, the RTC has no
jurisdiction. Their right also remained inchoate because the lot has not yet been sold.

The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC, concluding that the Complaint is mainly for collection of
sum of money and not one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation since petitioners are claiming 5% of the total purchase price
of the lot; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

HELD:
NO. The complaint is neither one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation nor involves interest in a real property. The averments
in the complaint and the character of the relief sought must be consulted because the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint.

In the case, the complaint is not incapable of pecuniary estimation because the main purpose of petitioners is to collect the
commission allegedly promised by respondents should they be able to sell the lot, as well as the compensation for the services they
rendered. It also cannot involve an interest in a real property because the compensation sought is not in the form of real estate.
Also, since the fair market value of the property is Php3,550,072.00 and 5% of this value is Php177,503.60 which is below the
jurisdictional amount of Php200,00, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

PETITION DENIED.