EULALIA

  RUSSELL,   RUPERTO   TAUTHO,   FRANCISCO   TAUTHO,   • Lower  court  granted  motion  to  dismiss  
SUSANA  T.  REALES,  APITACIO  TAUTHO,  DANILO  TAUTHO,  JUDITHA   • Motion  for  reconsideration;  denied  
PROS,   GREGORIO   TAUTHO,   DEODITA   T.   JUDILLA,   AGRIPINO  
TAUTHO,   FELIX   TAUTHO,   WILLIAM   TAUTHO,   AND   MARILYN   Issue:    
PERALES,  petitioners,  vs.   HONORABLE   AUGUSTINE   A.   VESTIL,   • Jurisdiction-­‐  RTC  or  MTC?  
ADRIANO   TAGALOG,   MARCELO   TAUTHO,   JUANITA   MENDOZA,  
DOMINGO   BANTILAN,   RAUL   BATALUNA   AND   ARTEMIO   Ruling:  
CABATINGAN,  respondents.  
• The  complaint  filed  before  the  Regional  Trial  Court  is  doubtless  
• September  28,  1994,  petitioners  filed  a  complaint  against  private   one   incapable   of   pecuniary   estimation   and   therefore   within   the  
respondents:   Declaration   of   nullity   and   partition  with   the   RTC   of   jurisdiction  of  said  court.  
Mandaue  City     • the   subject   matter   of   the   complaint   in   this   case   is   annulment   of   a  
• The   complaint   alleged   that   petitioners   are   co-­‐owners   of   that   document   denominated   as   "DECLARATION   OF   HEIRS   AND   DEED  
parcel  of  land,  Lot  6149  situated  in  Liloan,  Cebu   OF  CONFIRMATION  OF  PREVIOUS  ORAL  PARTITION."  
• The   land   was   previously   owned   by   the   spouses   Casimero   Tautho   • The   main   purpose   of   petitioners   in   filing   the   complaint   is   to  
and  Cesaria  Tautho   declare  null  and  void  the  document  in  which  private  respondents  
• Upon   the   death   of   said   spouses,   the   property   was   inherited   by   declared   themselves   as   the   only   heirs   of   the   late   spouses  
their  legal  heirs,  herein  petitioners  and  private  respondents.     Casimero   Tautho   and   Cesaria   Tautho   and   divided   his   property  
• Since   then,   the   lot   had   remained   undivided   until   petitioners   among  themselves  to  the  exclusion  of  petitioners  who  also  claim  
discovered  a  deed   to  be  legal  heirs  and  entitled  to  the  property.  
• By  virtue  of  this  deed,  private  respondents  divided  the  property   • While  the  complaint  also  prays  for  the  partition  of  the  property,  
among   themselves   to   the   exclusion   of   petitioners   who   are   also   this  is  just  incidental  to  the  main  action,  which  is  the  declaration  
entitled   to   the   said   lot   as   heirs   of   the   late   spouses   Casimero   of  nullity  of  the  document  above-­‐described.  
Tautho  and  Cesaria  Tautho   • jurisdiction  over  the  subject  matter  of  a  case  is  conferred  by  law  
• Petitioners   claimed   that   the   document   was   false   and   perjurious   and   is   determined   by   the   allegations   in   the   complaint   and   the  
as   the   private   respondents   were   not   the   only   heirs   and   that   no   character   of   the   relief   sought,   irrespective   of   whether   the  
oral   partition   of   the   property   whatsoever   had   been   made   plaintiff  is  entitled  to  all  or  some  of  the  claims  asserted  therein  
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   OF   GENEROSO   SEBE,  AURELIA   CENSERO   SEBE  
heirs.   and  LYDIA  SEBE,   petitioners   vs   HEIRS   OF   VERONICO   SEVILLA   and  
• Private   respondents   filed   a   motion   to   dismiss   on   the   ground   of   TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIVELIHOOD  RESOURCE  CENTER,  respondents.  
lack  of  jurisdiction  
• total   assessed   value   of   the   subject   land   is  P5,000.00   which   under   • August   10,   1999:   plaintiff   spouses   Generoso   and   Aurelia   Sebe  
section   33   (3)   of   Batas   Pambansa   Blg.   129,   as   amended   by   R.A.   and  their  daughter,  Lydia  Sebe,  (the  Sebes)  filed  with  the  RTC  of  
No.   7691   allegedly   falls   within   the   exclusive   jurisdiction   of   the   Dipolog   City  a   complaint   against   defendants   Veronico   Sevilla   and  
Municipal  Circuit  Trial  Court  of  Liloan,  Compostela   Technology   and   Livelihood   Resources   Center   for   Annulment   of  
• Petitioners   filed   an   opposition   to   the   motion   to   dismiss:   saying   Document,   Reconveyance   and   Recovery   of   Possession   of   two  
that   the   RTC   has   jurisdiction   since   the   action   is   one   which   is   lots,  which  had  a  total  assessed  value  of  P9,910.00,  plus  damages  
incapable   of   pecuniary   estimation   within   the   contemplation   of   • The  Sebes  claimed  that  they  owned  the  subject  lots  but,  through  
Section  19(l)  of  B.P.  129,  as  amended   fraud,   defendant   Sevilla   got   them   to   sign   documents   conveying  
the  lots  to  him.  
 • While   the   case   was   pending   before   the   RTC,   plaintiff   Generoso   making   them   sign   documents   of   conveyance   rather   than   just   a  
Sebe  died  so  his  wife  and  children  substituted  him.   deed  of  real  mortgage  to  secure  their  debt  to  him.    
• Parenthetically,  with  defendant  Veronico  Sevillas  death  in  2006,   • The  action  is,  therefore,  about  ascertaining  which  of  these  parties  
his  heirs  substituted  him  as  respondents  in  this  case.   is  the  lawful  owner  of  the  subject  lots,  jurisdiction  over  which  is  
• August  8,  2006  the  RTC  dismissed  the  case  for  lack  of  jurisdiction   determined  by  the  assessed  value  of  such  lots.  
over   the   subject   matter   considering   that   the   ultimate   relief   that   • Here,   the   total   assessed   value   of   the   two   lots   subject   of   the   suit  
the   Sebes   sought   was   the   reconveyance   of   title   and   possession   is  P9,910.00.  
over   two   lots   that   had   a   total   assessed   value   of   less   • Clearly,  this  amount  does  not  exceed  the  jurisdictional  threshold  
than  P20,000.00.     value  of  P20,000.00  fixed  by  law.    
• The  RTC  concluded  that  the  Sebes  should  have  filed  their  action   • The  other  damages  that  the  Sebes  claim  are  merely  incidental  to  
with  the  Municipal  Trial  Court  (MTC)  of  Dipolog  City   their  main  action  and,  therefore,  are  excluded  in  the  computation  
• Sebes   filed   a   motion   for   reconsideration-­‐   action   fell   within   the   of  the  jurisdictional  amount.  
jurisdiction   of   RTC   because   an   action   for   annulment   was  
 
incapable  of  pecuniary  estimation  
VICTORINO  QUINAGORAN,  petitioner   vs   COURT   OF   APPEALS   and  
 
THE  HEIRS  OF  JUAN  DE  LA  CRUZ,  respondents.  
Issue:    
• heirs   of   Juan  dela  Cruz,   represented   by  Senen  dela  Cruz   filed  
• The   issue   in   this   case   is   whether   or   not   the   Sebess   action   a  Complaint   for   Recovery   of   Portion   of   Registered   Land   with  
involving  the  two  lots  valued  at  less  than  P20,000.00  falls  within   Compensation   and   Damages  
the  jurisdiction  of  the  RTC.   against  Victorino  Quinagoran  (petitioner)  before   the   Regional  
Trial  Court  (RTC)  Branch  XI  of  Tuao,  Cagayan  
  • They   alleged  that   they   are   the   co-­‐owners   of   a   parcel   of   land  
Ruling:   containing   13,100   sq  m   located   at   Centro,  Piat,  Cagayan,   which  
they  inherited  from  the  late  Juan  dela  Cruz  
• the   law   that   applies   to   the   action   is  Batas   Pambansa  129,   as   • in   the   mid-­‐70s,   petitioner   started   occupying   a   house   on   the  
amended   north-­‐west   portion   of   the   property,   covering   400   sq  m,   by  
• The   Sebes   alleged   that   defendant   Sevilla   violated   their   right   of   tolerance  of  respondents  
ownership   by   tricking   them   into   signing   documents   of   absolute   • in   1993,   they   asked   petitioner   to   remove   the   house   as   they  
sale,   rather   than   just   a   real   estate   mortgage   to   secure   the   loan   planned  to  construct  a  commercial  building  on  the  property  
that  they  got  from  him.   • petitioner   refused,   claiming   ownership   over   the   lot;  and  that  
• The  present  action  is,  therefore,  not  about  the  declaration  of  the   they  suffered  damages  for  their  failure  to  use  the  same.  
nullity  of  the  documents  or  the  reconveyance  to  the  Sebes  of  the   • Respondents  prayed   for   the  reconveyance  and   surrender   of   the  
certificates  of  title  covering  the  two  lots.     disputed  400sq  m,  more  or  less  
• These   would   merely   follow   after   the   trial   court   shall   have   first   • Petitioners  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  claiming  that  the  RTC  has  no  
resolved  the  issue  of  which  between  the  contending  parties  is  the   jurisdiction   over   the   case  under  Republic   Act   (R.A.)  No.   7691,  
lawful   owner   of   such   lots,   the   one   also   entitled   to   their   which   expanded   the   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   of   the  
possession.     Municipal   Trial   Court   (MTC)  to  include   all   civil   actions   which  
• Based   on   the   pleadings,   the   ultimate   issue   is   whether   or   not   involve   title   to,   or   possession   of,   real   property,   or   any   interest  
defendant   Sevilla   defrauded   the   Sebes   of   their   property   by   therein  which  does  not  exceed  P20,  000.00.  
 • He  argued  that  since  the  346  sq  m  lot  which  he  owns  adjacent  to   • the   Court   has   already   held   that   a   complaint   must   allege   the  
the   contested   property   has   an   assessed   value   of  P1,730.00,   the   assessed   value   of   the   real   property   subject   of   the   complaint   or  
assessed   value   of   the   lot   under   controversy   would   not   be   more   the   interest   thereon   to   determine   which   court   has   jurisdiction  
than  the  said  amount   over  the  action  
• RTC   denied   motion   to   dismiss   stating   that   the   complaint   • WHY?   because   the   nature   of   the   action   and   which   court   has  
partakes   of   the   nature   of   action  publicciana   and   jurisdiction   over   original   and   exclusive   jurisdiction   over   the   same   is   determined  
said   action   lies   with   the   Regional   Trial   Court,   regardless   of   the   by   the   material   allegations   of   the   complaint,   the   type   of   relief  
value  of  the  property   prayed  for  by  the  plaintiff  and  the  law  in  effect  when  the  action  is  
• Petitioner  filed  for  motion  for  reconsideration;  denied  by  RTC   filed,   irrespective   of   whether   the   plaintiffs   are   entitled   to   some  
• Petitioner   then   went   to   the   CA   on   a  Petition   or  all  of  the  claims  asserted  therein  
for  Certiorari  and  Prohibition   seeking   the   annulment   of   • Nowhere  in  said  complaint  was  the  assessed  value  of  the  subject  
the  Orders  of  the  RTC.   property  ever  mentioned.  
• CA  affirmed  decision  of  RTC   • There  is  therefore  no  showing  on  the  face  of  the  complaint  that  
the   RTC   has  exclusive   jurisdiction   over   the   action   of   the  
  respondents.  
Issue:   • Hence,  all  proceedings  in  the  RTC  are  null  and  void.    
• CA  erred  in  affirming  the  RTC.  
• Does   the   RTC   have   jurisdiction   over   all   cases   of   recovery   of  
possession  regardless  of  the  value  of  the  property  involved?    
• whether   the   complaint   must   allege   the   assessed   value   of   the   ESPERANZA   SUP   APO   and   the   HEIRS   OF   ROMEO   SUPAPO,   namely:  
property  involved.   ESPERANZA,   REX   EDWARD,   RONALD   TROY,   ROMEO,   JR.,   SHEILA  
  LORENCE,   all   surnamed   SUPAPO,   and   SHERYL   FORTUNE   SUPAPO-­‐
SANDIGAN,   petitioners   versus   SPOUSES   ROBERTO   and   SUSAN   DE  
Ruling:   JESUS,   MACARIO   BERNARDO,   and   THOSE   PERSONS   CLAIMING  
RIGHTS  UNDER  THEM,  respondents.  
  Issue  #1  
• Spouses  Supapo  filed  a  complaint5  for  accion  publiciana  against  
• The   answer   is   no.  The   doctrine   on   which   the   RTC   anchored   its  
Roberto   and   Susan   de   Jesus   (Spouses   de   Jesus),   Macario  
denial   of   petitioner's   Motion   to  Dismiss,  as   affirmed   by  the   CA  -­‐-­‐
Bernardo   (Macario),   and   persons   claiming   rights   under   them  
 that  all   cases   of   recovery   of   possession   or  accion  publiciana  lies  
(collectively,   the   respondents),   with   the   Metropolitan   Trial   Court  
with   the   regional   trial   courts   regardless   of   the   value   of   the  
(MeTC)  of  Caloocan  City  
property  -­‐-­‐  no  longer  holds  true.    
• complaint  sought  to  compel  the  respondents  to  vacate  a  piece  of  
• As  things  now  stand,  a  distinction  must  be  made  between  those  
land   located   in   Novaliches,   Quezon   City,   described   as   Lot   40,  
properties   the   assessed   value   of   which   is   below  P20,000.00,   if  
Block   5   (subject   lot),   registered   and   titled   under   Spouses  
outside  Metro  Manila;  and  P50,000.00,  if  within.  
Supapo’s  names  
• The   Court   has   also   declared   that   all   cases   involving   title   to   or  
• The   land   has   an   assessed   value   of   thirty-­‐nine   thousand   nine  
possession   of   real   property   with   an   assessed   value   of   less  
hundred  eighty  pesos  (P39,980.00)  as  shown  in  the  Declaration  
than  P20,000.00  if  outside  Metro  Manila,  falls  under  the  original  
of   Real   Property   Value   (tax   declaration)   issued   by   the   Office   of  
jurisdiction  of  the  municipal  trial  court.  
the  City  Assessor  of  Caloocan  
Issue  #2   • The  Spouses  Supapo  did  not  reside  on  the  subject  lot.  
• They  also  did  not  employ  an  overseer  but  they  made  sure  to  visit   • RTC   granted   the   petition   for   certiorari   on   two   grounds:   (i)   the  
at  least  twice  a  year.   action  has  prescribed;  and  (ii)  accion  publiciana  falls  within  the  
• During  one  of  their  visits  in  1992,  they  saw  two  (2)  houses  built   exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  RTC.  
on  the  subject  lot   • It  held  that  in  cases  where  the  only  issue  involved  is  possession,  
• The  houses  were  built  without  their  knowledge  and  permission.     the   MeTC   has   jurisdiction   if   the   action   for   forcible   entry   or  
• They  later  learned  that  the  Spouses  de  Jesus  occupied  one  house   unlawful   detainer   is   filed   within   one   (1)   year   from   the   time   to  
while  Macario  occupied  the  other  one.   demand  to  vacate  was  made.    
• Spouses  Supapo  demanded  from  the  respondents  the  immediate   • the   complaint   for   recovery   of   possession   should   be   filed   before  
surrender   of   the   subject   lot   by   bringing   the   dispute   before   the   the  RTC.  
appropriate  Lupong  Tagapamayapa.   • motion  for  reconsideration  filed  by  Spouses  Supapo  
• The   Spouses   Supapo   then   filed   a   criminal   case11   against   the   • RTC  denied  the  petitioners’  motion  for  reconsideration.  
respondents   for   violation   of   Presidential   Decree   No.   772   or   the   • Spouses  Supapo  appealed  to  the  CA  
AntiSquatting  Law   • CA   dismissed   the   appeal   and   held   that   the   complaint   for   accion  
• Trial   court   convicted   the   respondents;   ordered   to   vacate   the   publiciana  should  have  been  lodged  before  the  RTC  and  that  the  
subject  premises   period  to  file  the  action  had  prescribed  
• Respondents  appealed  conviction  to  the  CA    
• While   case   was   pending,   Congress   enacted   RA   8268,   which  
Issue:  
resulted  to  the  dismissal  of  the  criminal  case  
• 1999:  CA’s  dismissal  of  the  criminal  case  became  final   • Whether  the  MeTC  properly  acquired  jurisdiction  
• Notwithstanding   the   dismissal,   the   Spouses   Supapo   moved   for  
the   execution   of   the   respondents’   civil   liability,   praying   that   the    
latter  vacate  the  subject  lot   Ruling:  
• RTC  granted  motion  and  issued  the  writ  of  execution  
• The  respondents  moved  for  the  quashal  of  the  writ  but  the  RTC   • the  MeTC  properly  acquired  jurisdiction  
denied  the  same.     • Accion   publiciana   is   an   ordinary   civil   proceeding   to   determine  
• The   RTC   also   denied   the   respondents’   motion   for   the  better  right  of  possession  of  realty  independent  of  title  
reconsideration.   • In   the   present   case,   the   Spouses   Supapo   filed   an   action   for   the  
• The  respondents  thus  filed  with  the  CA  a  petition  for  certiorari  to   recovery   of   possession   of   the   subject   lot   but   they   based   their  
challenge   the   RTC’s   orders   denying   the   quashal   of   the   writ   and   better  right  of  possession  on  a  claim  of  ownership  
the  respondent’s  motion  for  reconsideration   • objective   of   the   plaintiffs   in   accion   publiciana   is   to   recover  
• CA   granted   the   petition   but   noted   that   recourse   may   be   had   in   possession  only,  not  ownership  
court  by  filing  the  proper  action  for  recovery  of  possession   • jurisdiction   over   actions   involving   title   to   or   possession   of   real  
• Spouses  Supapo  thus  filed  the  complaint  for  accion  publiciana   property  is  now  determined  by  its  assessed  value  
• respondents   moved   to   set   their   affirmative   defenses   for   • The   assessed   value   of   real   property   is   its   fair   market   value  
preliminary  hearing   multiplied  by  the  assessment  level.  
• MeTC   denied   the   motion   to   set   the   affirmative   defenses   for  
 
preliminary  hearing  
• respondents  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  RTC   HEIRS  OF  CONCHA  vs  SPOUSES  LUMOCSO  
Petitioners   claim   to   be   the   rightful   owners   of   certain   lots   in   Cogon,  
Dipolog  City.  Respondents  are  the  patent  holders  and  registered  owners  
of   the   subject   lots.   Petitioners   filed   complaints   for   Reconveyance   against   Section  19.  Jurisdiction  in  Civil  Cases.-­‐-­‐  Regional  
respondents   in   the   RTC.   They   sought   to   annul   the   patent   issued   in   the   Trial   Courts   shall   exercise   exclusive   original  
name  of  Gregorio  Lumocso.  Respondents  moved  for  the  dismissal  of  the   jurisdiction:  x  x  x  
cases   against   them   on   the   grounds   lack   of   jurisdiction.   Respondents  
contended  that  RTC  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the  complaints  pursuant  to   (2)  In   all   civil   actions   which   involve   the   title   to,  
Sec   19(2)   of   BP   129,   as   amended   by   RA   7691,   as   in   each   case,   the   or   possession   of,   real   property,   or   any   interest   therein,  
assessed   values   of   the   subject   lots   are   less   than   P20,000.   Petitioners   where   the   assessed   value   of   the   property   involved  
opposed,   contending   that   the   instant   cases   involve   actions   the   subject   exceeds   Twenty   thousand   pesos   (P20,000.00)   or   for  
matters  of  which  are  incapable  of  pecuniary  estimation  which  fall  within   civil  actions  in  Metro  Manila,  where  such  value  exceeds  
the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  RTCs.   Fifty   thousand   pesos   (P50,000.00)   except   actions   for  
forcible   entry   into   and   unlawful   detainer   of   lands   or  
Issue:  Whether  or  not  RTC  has  jurisdiction  over  the  said  complaint   buildings,   original   jurisdiction   over   which   is   conferred  
upon   the   Metropolitan   Trial   Courts,   Municipal   Trial  
Held:  No.   Courts,  and  Municipal  Circuit  Trial  Courts;    
Jurisdiction  over  the  subject  matter  is  the  power  to  hear  and  determine   x  x  x.  
cases   of   the   general   class   to   which   the   proceedings   in   question   belong.   It  
is   conferred   by   law   and   an   objection   based   on   this   ground   cannot   be   In  the  cases  at  bar,  it  is  undisputed  that  the  subject  lots  are  situated  in  
waived   by   the   parties.  To   determine   whether   a   court   has   jurisdiction   Cogon,  Dipolog  City  and  their  assessed  values  are  less  than  P20,000.00.  
over   the   subject   matter   of   a   case,   it   is   important   to   determine   the   nature  
of  the  cause  of  action  and  of  the  relief  sought.   Hence,  the  MTC  clearly  has  jurisdiction  over  the  instant  cases.  

The   trial   court   correctly   held   that   the   instant   cases   involve   actions   for    
reconveyance.   An   action   for   reconveyance   respects   the   decree   of   CABRERA  vs  FRAGINAL  
registration  as  incontrovertible  but  seeks  the  transfer  of  property,  which  
has  been  wrongfully  or  erroneously  registered  in  other  persons'  names,   Petitioner’s   father,   Severino   Cabrera,   was   appointed   administrator   by  
to   its   rightful   and   legal   owners,   or   to   those   who   claim   to   have   a   better   respondent’s   father,   Atty.   Lorenzo   Gella,   of   all   his   real   properties   located  
right.  There   is   no   special   ground   for   an   action   for   reconveyance.  It   is   in   San   Jose.   Antique.   When   Severino   died,   petitioners   Araceli   and   Arnel  
enough   that   the   aggrieved   party   has   a   legal   claim   on   the   property   Cabrera,   with   the   consent   of   the   respondents,   took   over   the  
superior   to   that   of   the   registered   owner  and   that   the   property   has   not   administration  of  the  properties.  Respondents  likewise  instructed  them  
yet  passed  to  the  hands  of  an  innocent  purchaser  for  value.   to   look   for   buyers   of   the   properties,   allegedly   promising   them   a  
commission   of   5%   of   the   total   purchase   price   of   said   properties   as  
These  cases  may  also  be  considered  as  actions  to  remove  cloud  on  one's   compensation   for   their   long   and   continued   administration   thereof.  
title   as   they   are   intended   to   procure   the   cancellation   of   an   instrument   Accordingly,   petitioners   introduced   real   estate   broker,   Erlinda   Veñegas  
constituting  a  claim  on  petitioners'  alleged  title  which  was   used  to  injure   to   the   respondents.   Thereafter,   respondents   appointed   Erlinda   as   the  
or  vex  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  alleged  title.     new  administratix  of  the  properties  and  terminated  petitioners’  services.  
Being   in   the   nature   of   actions   for   reconveyance   or   actions   to   remove   Petitioners,  through  counsel,  wrote  respondents  and  demanded  for  their  
cloud   on   one's   title,   the   applicable   law   to   determine   which   court   has   5%  commission  and  compensation  to  no  avail.  They  filed  a  Complaint  for  
jurisdiction   is   Section   19(2)   of   B.P.   129,   as   amended   by   R.A.   No.   Collection   of   Agent’s   Compensation,   Commission   and   Damages  against  
7691,  viz:   respondents   before   the   RTC.   Respondents   filed   a   Motion   to   Dismiss  
based  on  lack  of  jurisdiction,  among  others.  
Issue:  Whether  or  not  RTC  has  jurisdiction  
Held:  No.   Held:  Yes.  
The  nature  of  an  action,  as  well  as  which  court  or  body  has  jurisdiction   The   MTCC   has   jurisdiction   to   take   cognizance   of   real   actions   or   those  
over   it,   is   determined   based   on   the   allegations   contained   in   the   affecting   title   to   real   property,   or   for   the   recovery   of   possession,   or   for  
Complaint   of   the   plaintiffs.   The   averments   in   the   Complaint   and   the   the   partition   or   condemnation   of,   or   foreclosure   of   a   mortgage   on   real  
character   of   the   relief   sought   are   the   ones   to   be   consulted.   The   property.  Section  33  of  Batas  Pambansa  Bilang  129  provides:  
petitioners’  main  purpose  in  filing  the  same  is  to  collect  the  commission  
allegedly  promised  them  by  respondents  should  they  be  able  to  sell  the   Section   33.   Jurisdiction   of   Metropolitan   Trial   Courts,  
subject   lot,   as   well   as   the   compensation   for   the   services   rendered   by   Municipal  Trial  Courts  and  Municipal  Circuit  Trial  Courts  
Severino,   Araceli   and   Arnel   for   the   administration   of   respondents’   in  civil  cases.–  Metropolitan  Trial  Courts,  Municipal  Trial  
properties.   Captioned   as   a   Complaint   for   Collection   of   Agent’s   Courts,  and  Municipal  Circuit  
Compensation,   Commission   and   Damages,   it   is   principally   for   the   Trial  Courts  shall  exercise:  
collection   of   a   sum   of   money   representing   such   compensation   and  
commission.   Indeed,   the   payment   of   such   money   claim   is   the   principal   x  x  x  x  
relief  sought  and  not  merely  incidental  to,  or  a  consequence  of  another  
(3)   Exclusive   original   jurisdiction   in   all   civil   actions  
action   where   the   subject   of   litigation   may   not   be   estimated   in   terms   of  
which  involve  title  to,  or  possession  of,  real  property,  or  
money.   In   fact,   petitioners   in   this   case   estimated   their   claim   to   be  
any   interest   therein   where   the   assessed   value   of   the  
equivalent  to  five  percent  of  the  purchase  price  of  the  said  lot.  Therefore,  
propertyor   interest   therein   does   not   exceed   Twenty  
the   CA   did   not   err   when   it   ruled   that   petitioners’   Complaint   is   not  
thousand   pesos   (P20,000.00)or,   in   civil   actions   in   Metro  
incapable  of  pecuniary  estimation.  
Manila,  where  such  assessed  value  does  not  exceed  Fifty  
In   view   of   the   foregoing,   the   CA   did   not   err   in   affirming   the   RTC’s   thousand   pesos   (P50,000.00)   exclusive   of   interest,  
conclusion  that  it  has  no  jurisdiction  over  petitioners’  claim.   damages   of   whatever   kind,   attorney's   fees,   litigation  
expenses   and   costs:   Provided,   That   value   of   such  
  property  shall  be  determined  by  the  assessed  value  of  the  
BARRIDO  vs  NONATO   adjacent  lots.  (as  amended  by  R.A.  No.  7691)9  

In   the   course   of   the   marriage   of   respondent   Leonardo   V.   Nonato   and   Here,   the   subject   property’s   assessed   value   was   merely  P8,080.00,   an  
petitioner   Marietta   N.   Barrido,   they   were   able   to   acquire   a   property   amount  which  certainly  does  not  exceed  the  required  limit  of  P20,000.00  
situated  in  Eroreco,  Bacolod  City,  consisting  of  a  house  and  lot.  On  March   for  civil  actions  outside  Metro  Manila  to  fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  
15,   1996,   their   marriage   was   declared   void   on   the   ground   of   MTCC.   Therefore,   the   lower   court   correctly   took   cognizance   of   the  
psychological   incapacity.   Since   there   was   no   more   reason   to   maintain   instant  case.  
their   co-­‐ownership   over   the   property,   Nonato   asked   Barrido   for    
partition,  but  the  latter  refused.  Thus,  on  January  29,  2003,  Nonato  filed  
a   Complaint   for   partition   before   the   Municipal   Trial   Court   in   Cities    
(MTCC)  of  Bacolod  City.  Barrido  claimed,  by  way  of  affirmative  defense,  
 
that  the  subject  property  had  already  been  sold  to  their  children,  Joseph  
Raymund   and   Joseph   Leo.   She   likewise   moved   for   the   dismissal   of   the    
complaint  because  the  MTCC  lacked  jurisdiction,  the  partition  case  being  
an  action  incapable  of  pecuniary  estimation.  
Issue:  Whether  or  not  MTCC  has  jurisdiction