Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
VICTORINO
QUINAGORAN, G.R. NO. 155179
Petitioner,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,
and
REYES,
JJ.
COURT
OF APPEALS and
THE
HEIRS OF JUAN DE LA
CRUZ, Promulgated:
Respondents. August 24, 2007
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the Decision[1] of the
Court Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 60443 dated May 27, 2002 and its Resolution[2] dated
August 28, 2002, which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
The
factual antecedents.
The heirs of Juan dela Cruz, represented by Senen
dela Cruz (respondents), filed
on October 27, 1994 a Complaint for Recovery of Portion of
Registered Land with Compensation and Damages against Victorino
Quinagoran (petitioner) before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch XI of Tuao, Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 240-T.[3] They alleged that they are the
co-owners of a a
parcel of land containing 13,100 sq m located at Centro, Piat, Cagayan, which they
inherited from the late Juan dela Cruz;[4] that in
the mid-70s, petitioner started occupying a house on the north-west portion of
the property, covering 400 sq m, by tolerance of respondents;
that in 1993, they asked petitioner to remove the house as they planned to
construct a commercial building on the property; that petitioner refused,
claiming ownership over the lot; and that they
suffered damages for their failure to use the same.[5] Respondents prayed
for the reconveyance and surrender of the disputed
400 sq m, more or less, and to be paid the amount of P5,000.00
monthly until the property is vacated, attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00,
costs of suit and other reliefs and remedies just and
equitable.[6]
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss
claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) to
include all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein which does not exceed P20,000.00. He argued that since the 346 sq m lot
which he owns adjacent to the contested property has an assessed value of P1,730.00, the assessed value of the lot under controversy
would not be more than the said amount.[7]
The RTC denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss in an
Order dated
The Court finds the said motion to be without merit. The present action on the basis of the
allegation of the complaint partakes of the nature of action publicciana (sic) and jurisdiction over said action lies
with the Regional Trial Court, regardless of the value of the property. This is so because in paragraph 8 of the
complaint, it is alleged that the plaintiff demanded from the defendant the
removal of the house occupied by the defendant and the possession of which is
“Only due to Tolerance (sic) of herein plaintiffs”.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.[8]
Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration was also denied by the RTC.[9]
Petitioner then went to the CA on a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition
seeking the annulment of the Orders of the RTC.[10]
On
At the onset,
we find that the complaint filed by the Heirs of Juan dela
Cruz, represented by Senen dela
Cruz adequately set forth the jurisdictional requirements for a case to be
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.
The Complaint is captioned “recovery of portion of registered land” and
it contains the following allegations:
7. That
since plaintiffs and defendant were neighbors, the latter being the admitted
owner of the adjoining lot, the former's occupancy of
said house by defendant was only due to the tolerance of herein plaintiffs;
8. That
plaintiffs, in the latter period of 1993, then demanded the removal of the
subject house for the purpose of constructing a commercial building and which
herein defendant refused and in fact now claims ownership of the portion in
which said house stands;
9. That
repeated demands relative to the removal of the subject house were hence made
but which landed on deaf ears;
10. That a
survey of the property as owned by herein plaintiffs clearly establishes that
the subject house is occupying Four Hundred (400) square meters thereof at the
north-west portion thereof, as per the approved survey plan in the records of
the Bureau of Lands.
x x x x
It is settled that when the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive
of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it
does not state how entry was effected or how and when
dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reinvindicatoria in the proper regional trial court. In the latter instances, jurisdiction
pertains to the Regional Trial Court.
As another legal recourse from a simple ejectment
case governed by the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure, an accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right
of possession when dispossession has lasted more than one year or when
dispossession was effected by means other than those mentioned in Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court. Where there is no
allegation that there was denial of possession through any of the methods
stated in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, or where there is no lease
contract between the parties, the proper remedy is the plenary action of
recovery of possession. Necessarily, the
action falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Thus, we find that the private respondents
[heirs of dela Cruz] availed of the proper remedy
when they filed the action before the court a quo.
Undoubtedly, the respondent court therefore did not act with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to or in excess of jurisdiction in denying Quinagoran's Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for
Reconsideration, thereof, because it has jurisdiction to hear and decide the
instant case.
x x x x
It would not be amiss to point out that the nature of the action and
jurisdiction of courts are determined by the allegations in the complaint. As correctly held by the
Regional Trial Court, “the present action on the basis of the allegation of the
complaint partakes of the nature of action publiciana
and jurisdiction over said action lies with the Regional Trial Court regardless
of the value of the property.
Therefore, we completely agree with the court a quo's conclusion that
the complaint filed by the Heirs of Juan dela Cruz,
represented by Senen dela
Cruz, is in the nature of an accion publiciana and hence it is the Regional Trial Court
which has jurisdiction over the action, regardless of the assessed value of the
property subject of present controversy.[12]
Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration was denied on
Petitioner now comes before this Court
on a petition for review claiming that under R.A. No. 7691 the
jurisdiction of the MTC, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
and Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) was expanded to include exclusive
original jurisdiction over civil actions when the assessed value of the
property does not exceed P20,000.00
outside Metro Manila and P50,000.00 within Metro Manila.[14] He
likewise avers that it is an indispensable requirement that the complaint
should allege the assessed value of the property involved.[15] In this case, the complaint does not allege
that the assessed value of the land in question is more than P20,000.00. There was
also no tax declaration attached to the complaint to show the assessed value of
the property. Respondents therefore
failed to allege that the RTC has jurisdiction over the instant case.[16] The tax declaration covering Lot No. 1807
owned by respondents and where the herein disputed property is purportedly part
-- a copy of which petitioner submitted to the CA -- also shows that the value
of the property is only P551.00.[17]
Petitioner then prays that the CA Decision and Resolution be annulled and set
aside and that the complaint of herein respondents before the trial court be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.[18]
Respondents contend that: the
petition is without factual and legal bases, and the contested decision of the
CA is entirely in accordance with law;[19] nowhere
in the body of their complaint before the RTC does it state that the assessed
value of the property is below P20,000.00;[20] the
contention of petitioner in his Motion to Dismiss
before the RTC that the assessed value of the disputed lot is below P20,000.00
is based on the assessed value of an adjacent property and no documentary proof
was shown to support the said allegation;[21] the tax
declaration which petitioner presented, together with his
Supplemental Reply before the CA, and on the basis of which he claims that the
disputed property's assessed value is only P551.00,
should also not be given credence as the said tax declaration reflects the
amount of P56,100.00 for the entire property.[22]
The
question posed in the present petition is not
complicated, i.e., does the RTC have
jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession regardless of the value
of the property involved?
The answer is no. The doctrine on which the RTC anchored its
denial of petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, as
affirmed by the CA -- that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the regional trial
courts regardless of the value of the property -- no
longer holds true. As things now stand,
a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which
is below P20,000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if
within.
Republic Act No. 7691[23] which
amended Batas Pambansa Blg. 129[24] and which was already in effect[25] when
respondents filed their complaint with the RTC on
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
x x x x
(2) In all civil
actions which involve the title to or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except
for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
x x x x
SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. --- Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
x x x x
(3) Exclusive
original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of , real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages
or whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots.(Emphasis supplied)
The Court has also declared that all
cases involving title to or possession of real property with an assessed value
of less than P20,000.00 if outside Metro
Manila, falls under the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court.[27]
In Atuel v.
Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general
jurisdiction. Specifically, the regional
trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction “in all civil actions
which involve x x x possession of real property.”
However, if the
assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro P20,000.00 outside of Metro
That settled,
the next point of contention is whether the complaint must allege the assessed
value of the property involved.
Petitioner maintains that there should be such an allegation, while
respondents claim the opposite.
In no uncertain terms, the Court has
already held that a complaint must allege the assessed value of the real
property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine which
court has jurisdiction over the action.[30] This is because the nature of the
action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same 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.[31]
In this case, the complaint denominated
as “Recovery of Portion of Registered Land with Compensation and
Damages,” reads:
1. That
plaintiffs are the only direct and legitimate heirs of the late Juan dela Cruz, who died intestate on
x x x x
4. That
plaintiffs inherited from x x x Juan dela Cruz x x x a
certain parcel of land x x x containing an area of 13,111 square meters.
5. That
sometime in the mid-1960's, a house was erected on the north-west portion of the aforedescribed
lot x x x.
x x x x
7. That
since plaintiffs and defendant were neighbors, the latter being the admitted
owner of the adjoining lot, the former's occupancy of
said house by defendant was only due to the tolerance of herein plaintiffs;
8. That
plaintiffs, in the latter period of 1993, then demanded the removal of the
subject house for the purpose of constructing a commercial building and which
herein defendant refused and in fact now claims ownership of the portion in
which said house stands;
9. That
repeated demands relative to the removal of the subject house were hence made
but which landed on deaf ears;
10. That a
survey of the property as owned by herein plaintiffs clearly establishes that
the subject house is occupying Four Hundred (400) square meters thereof at the
north-west portion thereof, as per the approved survey plan in the records of
the Bureau of Lands.[32]
Nowhere in said complaint was the
assessed value of the subject property ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the face of
the complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the
action of the respondents.[33] Indeed, absent any allegation in
the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be determined
whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the petitioner's action.[34] The
courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land.[35]
Jurisdiction of the court does not
depend upon the answer of the defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or
acquiescence of the parties.[36] Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over
the nature of the action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to
depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend
almost entirely on the defendant.[37]
Considering that the respondents failed
to allege in their complaint the assessed value of the subject property, the RTC seriously
erred in denying the motion to dismiss.
Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void,[38] and the
CA erred in affirming the RTC.[39]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals's Decision
in CA-GR SP No. 60443 dated May 27, 2002
and its Resolution dated August 28,
2002, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court’s Orders
dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate
Justices Eubulo G. Verzola
and Bernardo P. Abesamis, concurring; rollo, pp. 45-53.
[2]
[3]
[4]
The property is more particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land Lot No. 1807, Pls-149
(FV-7403) located at Centro, Piat, Cagayan, Bounded on the NE., by Lot 1809, Pls-149 on the SE., by Lots 1810 and 1900, Pls-149; on the SW., by
[5]
[6]
[7] TCT No. T-4029 and covered by Tax Declaration No. 6303, id. at 22.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] AN
ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
“JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980”.
[24] JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980.
[25] Republic Act No. 7691 took effect on
[26] Rollo, p. 21.
[27] See Aliabo v. Carampatan, 407 Phil. 31, 36 (2001).
[28] G.R. No. 139561,
[29]
[30] Laresma
v. Abellana, G.R. No. 140973,
[31] Hilario v.
[32] Rollo, pp. 18-20.
[33] See Laresma v. Abellana, supra note 30, at 173.
[34] Hilario
v.
[35]
[36]
[37] Laresma v. Abellana, supra note 30, at 168.
[38]
[39] Atuel
v.