Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No.

160384 (April 29, 2005) Case

Digest
Ownership > Ownership in General > Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership > Actions
Available to Owner > Recovery of Real Property > Accion Publiciana and Accion
Reinvindicatoria

Facts:

Hilario filed a complaint with the RTC against Salvador alleging that they were the co-owners of
the parcel of land where Salvador constructed his house without their knowledge and refused to
vacate despite their demands.

Salvodor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He
contended that the complaint did not state the assessed value of the property, which determines
the jurisdiction of the court.

Hilario maintained that the RTC had jurisdiction since their action was an accion
reinvindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, regardless of the assessed
value of the subject property, exclusive jurisdiction fell within the said court. Also, in their
opposition to Salvador's motion to dismiss, they mentioned the increase in the assessed value of
the land in the amount of P3.5 million. Moreover, they maintained that their action was also one
for damages exceeding P20,000.00, over which the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not the action filed by Hilario was an accion reinvindicatoria.

Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Hilario.

Held:

The action filed by Hilario did not involve a claim of ownership over the property. They prayed
that Salvador vacate the property and restore possession to them. Hence, it was an accion
publiciana, or one for the recovery of possession of the real property. It was not an aaccion
reinvindicatoria or a suit for the recovery of possession over the real property as owner.

The nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction is determined by
the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law
in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all
of the claims asserted therein.

The complaint did not contain an allegation stating the assessed value of the property. Absent
any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it could not thus be
determined whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the action.

The law also explicitly excluded from the determination of the jurisdictional amount the demand
for interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs.

Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the
decision of the RTC, were null and void.