Anda di halaman 1dari 4

DIGESTS De Ungria et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

165777 | July 25, 2011 FACTS This is a petition for review on certiorari for ownership, possession and damages, and alternative causes of action either to declare two documents as patent nullities, and/or for recovery of Rosario's conjugal share with damages or redemption of the subject land against petitioner Ceferina de Ungria et al. Respondent Rosario is the surviving wife of the late Fernando Castor, while the rest of the respondents are their legitimate children. The documents they (respondents) sought to annul are (1) the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest including Improvements thereon allegedly executed by Fernando in favor of Eugenio de Ungria, petitioner's father; and (2) the Affidavit of Relinquishment executed by Eugenio in favor of petitioner. Petitioner also filed an Addendum to the Motion to Dismiss raising, among others that the court has no jurisdiction over the case for failure of plaintiffs to pay the filing fee in full. Pending resolution of the motion, respondents filed a Motion to Allow them to continue prosecuting this case as indigent litigants. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification on whether plaintiffs should be allowed to continue prosecuting the case as indigent litigants. Said motion was denied. The same was filed to the RTC and to the CA; both were denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari where petitioner raises the following assignment of error: that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that respondent RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner s Motion to Dismiss despite respondent s non-payment of the correct docket fees. ISSUE Was jurisdiction vested to the RTC in this civil case despite the failure of the plaintiff to file the necessary docket fees? RULING YES. It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that when an action is filed in court, the complaint must be accompanied by the payment of the requisite docket and filing fees. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Section 7(b)(1) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. - (a) For filing an action or a permissive counter-claim or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing with leave of court a third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-in-intervention, and for all clerical services in the same, if the total-sum claimed, exclusive of interest, or the stated value of the property in litigation, is: xxxx (b) For filing: 1. Actions where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated ........ P400.00 2. x x x In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees. Since we find that the case involved the annulment of contract which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, thus, falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC, the docket fees should not be based on the assessed value of the subject land as claimed by petitioner in their memorandum, but should be based on Section 7(b)(1) of Rule 141. A perusal of the entries in the Legal Fees Form attached to the records would reflect that the amount of P400.00 was paid to the Clerk of Court, together with the other fees, as assessed by the Clerk of Court. Thus, upon respondents' proof of payment of the assessed fees, the RTC has properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction once acquired is never lost, it continues until the case is terminated.

Padilla vs. Magdua G.R. No. 176858 | September 15, 2010

FACTS On 26 October 2001, petitioners (Padilla) filed an action with the RTC of Tacloban City, Branch 34, for recovery of ownership, possession, partition and damages. Petitioners sought to declare void the sale of the land by Ricardo s daughters, Josephine Bahia and Virginia Bahia-Abas, to respondent Dominador Magdua (Dominador). The sale (through misrepresentation by Ricardo) was made during the lifetime of Ricardo. Dominador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the assessed value of the land was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Leyte. In an Order (2006) the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC explained that the assessed value of the land in the amount of P590.00 was less than the amount cognizable by the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioners argued that the action was not merely for recovery of ownership and possession, partition and damages but also for annulment of deed of sale. Since actions to annul contracts are actions beyond pecuniary estimation, the case was well within the jurisdiction of the RTC. ISSUE Should the RTC take cognizance of this case? RULING YES. When petitioners filed the action with the RTC they sought to recover ownership and possession of the land by questioning (1) the due execution and authenticity of the Affidavit executed by Juanita in favor of Ricardo which caused Ricardo to be the sole owner of the land to the exclusion of petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the land, and (2) the validity of the deed of sale executed between Ricardo s daughters and Dominador. Since the principal action sought here is something other than the recovery of a sum of money, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus cognizable by the RTC. Well-entrenched is the rule 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 party is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted. xxx Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the following actions: Section1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. exclusive original jurisdiction. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise

"(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; xxx

Alcantara vs. Nido G.R. No. 165133 | April 19, 2010 FACTS Revelen, who is respondent s daughter and of legal age, is the owner of an unregistered land with an area of 1,939 square meters located in Rizal. On March 1984, respondent accepted the offer of

petitioners to purchase a 200-square meter portion of Revelen s lot (lot) at P200 per square meter. Petitioners paid P3,000 as downpayment and the balance was payable on installment. Petitioners constructed their houses in 1985. In 1986, with respondent s consent, petitioners occupied an additional 150 square meters of the lot. By 1987, petitioners had already paid P17,500 before petitioners defaulted on their installment payments. On May 1994, respondent, acting as administrator and attorney-in-fact of Revelen, filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction against petitioners with the RTC. ISSUE Does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to try and decide on this case (recovery of possession or accion publiciana)? RULING NO. Before the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7691, the plenary action of accion publiciana was to be brought before the regional trial court. With the modifications introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the first level courts has been expanded to include jurisdiction over other real actions where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000, P50,000 where the action is filed in Metro Manila. The first level courts thus have exclusive original jurisdiction over accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria where the assessed value of the real property does not exceed the aforestated amounts. Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value of the property. The appellate court correctly ruled that even if the complaint filed with the RTC involves a question of ownership, the MTC still has jurisdiction because the assessed value of the whole lot as stated in Tax Declaration No. 09-0742 is P4,890. The general rule is that dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by law. The lack of jurisdiction affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action. Since the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint filed, all the proceedings as well as the Decision of 17 June 2002 are void. The complaint should perforce be dismissed.

Malana vs. Tappa G.R. No. 181303 | September 17, 2009 FACTS Petitioners filed before the RTC their Complaint for Reivindicacion, Quieting of Title, and Damages against respondents. Petitioners alleged in their Complaint that they are the owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-127937 situated in Tuguegarao City (subject property). Petitioners inherited the subject property from Anastacio Danao (Anastacio), who died intestate. During the lifetime of Anastacio, he had allowed Consuelo Pauig (Consuelo), who was married to

Joaquin Boncad, to build on and occupy the southern portion of the subject property. Anastacio and Consuelo agreed that the latter would vacate the said land at any time that Anastacio and his heirs might need it. Before respondents could file their answer, the RTC issued an Order dismissing petitioners Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The RTC referred to Republic Act No. 7691, amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which vests the RTC with jurisdiction over real actions, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000.00. It found that the subject property had a value of less than P20,000.00; hence, petitioners action to recover the same was outside the jurisdiction of the RTC. ISSUE Did the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint of the petitioners motu proprio due to lack of jurisdiction? RULING NO. Petitioners Complaint contained sufficient allegations for an accion reivindicatoria. Jurisdiction over such an action would depend on the value of the property involved. Given that the subject property herein is valued only at P410.00, then the MTC, not the RTC, has jurisdiction over an action to recover the same. The RTC, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing, without prejudice, petitioners Complaint in Civil Case No. 6868 for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, although an action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code may be brought before the appropriate RTC, the use of the word "may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word "shall" and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00.