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