THIRD
DIVISION
|
CARMEN DANAO MALANA, MARIA DANAO
ACORDA, EVELYN DANAO, FERMINA DANAO, LETICIA DANAO and LEONORA DANAO, the
last two are represented herein by
their Attorney-in-Fact, MARIA DANAO ACORDA,
Petitioners, - versus - BENIGNO TAPPA, JERRY REYNA, SATURNINO
CAMBRI and SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND MARIA LIGUTAN, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 181303 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: September 17, 2009 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, assailing the Orders[1]
dated 4 May 2007, 30 May 2007, and 31 October 2007, rendered by Branch 3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, which dismissed, for lack of
jurisdiction, the Complaint of petitioners Carmen Danao Malana, Leticia Danao,
Maria Danao Accorda, Evelyn Danao, Fermina Danao, and Leonora Danao, against
respondents Benigno Tappa, Jerry Reyna, Saturnino Cambri, Francisco Ligutan and
Maria Ligutan, in Civil Case No. 6868.
Petitioners
filed before the RTC their Complaint for Reivindicacion, Quieting of Title, and
Damages[2]
against respondents on
Petitioners
claimed that respondents, Consuelo’s family members,[6]
continued to occupy the subject property even after her death, already building
their residences thereon using permanent materials. Petitioners also learned that respondents
were claiming ownership over the subject property. Averring that they already needed it, petitioners
demanded that respondents vacate the same.
Respondents, however, refused to heed petitioners’ demand.[7]
Petitioners
referred their land dispute with respondents to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Annafunan West for conciliation. During the conciliation proceedings, respondents
asserted that they owned the subject property and presented documents
ostensibly supporting their claim of ownership.
According
to petitioners, respondents’ documents were highly dubious, falsified, and
incapable of proving the latter’s claim of ownership over the subject property;
nevertheless, they created a cloud upon petitioners’ title to the property. Thus, petitioners were compelled to file before
the RTC a Complaint to remove such cloud from their title.[8] Petitioners additionally sought in their
Complaint an award against respondents for actual damages, in the amount of P50,000.00,
resulting from the latter’s baseless claim over the subject property that did
not actually belong to them, in violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code on
Human Relations.[9] Petitioners likewise prayed for an award against
respondents for exemplary damages, in the amount of P50,000.00, since the
latter had acted in bad faith and resorted to unlawful means to establish their
claim over the subject property. Finally,
petitioners asked to recover from respondents P50,000.00 as attorney’s
fees, because the latter’s refusal to vacate the property constrained
petitioners to engage the services of a lawyer.[10]
Before respondents
could file their answer, the RTC issued an Order dated 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. The
RTC decreed in its
The
Court has no jurisdiction over the action, it being a real action involving a
real property with assessed value less than P20,000.00 and hereby
dismisses the same without prejudice.[12]
Petitioners
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned RTC Order dismissing
their Complaint. They argued that their
principal cause of action was for quieting of title; the accion reivindicacion was included merely to enable them to seek
complete relief from respondents. Petitioner’s
Complaint should not have been dismissed, since Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules
of Court[13]
states that an action to quiet title falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.[14]
In an Order
dated P20,000.00. Since the
assessed value of subject property per Tax Declaration No, 02-48386 was P410.00,
the real action involving the same was outside the jurisdiction of the RTC.[15]
Petitioners
filed another pleading, simply designated as Motion, in which they prayed that the
RTC Orders dated
The RTC
issued an Order dated
Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.
The RTC differentiated
between the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules
of Court. The first paragraph refers to
an action for declaratory relief, which should be brought before the RTC. The second paragraph, however, refers to a
different set of remedies, which includes an action to quiet title to real
property. The second paragraph must be
read in relation to Republic Act No. 7691, which vests the MTC with
jurisdiction over real actions, where the assessed value of the real property
involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila and P20,000.00
in all other places.[18] The dispositive part of the
This
Court maintains that an action to quiet title is a real action. [Herein petitioners] do not dispute the
assessed value of the property at P410.00 under Tax Declaration No.
02-48386. Hence, it has no jurisdiction
over the action.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Motion is hereby denied.[19]
Hence, the
present Petition, where petitioners raise the sole issue of:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONERS MOTU PROPRIO.[20]
Petitioners’ statement of the issue
is misleading. It would seem that they
are only challenging the fact that their Complaint was dismissed by the RTC motu proprio. Based on the facts and arguments set forth in
the instant Petition, however, the Court determines that the fundamental issue
for its resolution is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing petitioners’ Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court rules in the negative.
An action for declaratory relief
should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or
other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an
executive order, a regulation or an ordinance.
The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and
determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial
declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder.[21]
Petitions for declaratory relief are
governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC correctly made a distinction between the first and the second
paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The first paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, describes the general circumstances in which a
person may file a petition for declaratory relief, to wit:
Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. (Emphasis ours.)
As the afore-quoted provision states,
a petition for declaratory relief under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule
63 may be brought before the appropriate RTC.
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of
Court further provides in its second paragraph that:
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule. (Emphasis ours.)
The second paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court specifically refers to (1) an action for the
reformation of an instrument, recognized under Articles 1359 to 1369 of the
Civil Code; (2) an action to quiet title, authorized by Articles 476 to 481 of
the Civil Code; and (3) an action to consolidate ownership required by Article
1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with a right to repurchase. These three remedies are considered similar
to declaratory relief because they also result in the adjudication of the legal
rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the
judgment into effect.[22]
To determine which court has
jurisdiction over the actions identified in the second paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be read together with those
of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended.
It is important to note that Section
1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an action
to quiet title be filed before the RTC.
It repeatedly uses the word “may” – that an action for quieting of title
“may be brought under [the] Rule” on petitions for declaratory relief, and a
person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief “may x x x bring an
action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court.” 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.[23]
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, thus:
Section 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,
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
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: x x x
(Emphasis ours.)
As found by
the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax
Declaration No. 02-48386 is only P410.00; therefore, petitioners’
Complaint involving title to and possession of the said property is within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC.
Furthermore, an action for
declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the
instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder.[24] Since the purpose of an action for declaratory
relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of
the parties under a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the
enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising
from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to
which it refers. A petition for
declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending controversies that have
not reached the state where another relief is immediately available; and
supplies the need for a form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of
obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs.[25]
Where the law or contract has already
been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the
courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no more
jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already
been infringed or transgressed before the institution of the action.[26]
In the present case, petitioners’
Complaint for quieting of title was filed after
petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate the subject
property. In fact, said Complaint was
filed only subsequent to the latter’s express claim of ownership over the
subject property before the Lupong Tagapamayapa,
in direct challenge to petitioners’ title.
Since petitioners averred in the
Complaint that they had already been deprived of the possession of their
property, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an accion publiciana or an accion
reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. An accion
publiciana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed one year after
the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty. An accion reivindicatoria is a suit that has
for its object one’s recovery of possession over the real property as owner.[27]
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.
As for the RTC dismissing
petitioners’ Complaint motu proprio,
the following pronouncements of the Court in Laresma v. Abellana[28]
proves instructive:
It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time the action was commenced. Jurisdiction of the tribunal over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, it may dismiss the same ex mero motu or motu proprio. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Since the RTC, in dismissing
petitioners’ Complaint, acted in complete accord with law and jurisprudence, it
cannot be said to have done so with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. An act of a
court or tribunal may only be considered to have been committed in grave abuse
of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all
in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[29] No such circumstances exist herein as to
justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The Orders dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were 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
CERTIFICATION
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 were 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 Judge Marivic Cacatian-Beltran; rollo,
pp. 25-28.
[2] Rollo, pp.
50-54.
[3] Id. at 56.
[4] The
records fail to state the exact relationship between petitioners and Anastacio
Danao, apart from the allegation in the Complaint that the former are heirs of
the latter.
[5] Rollo, p. 51.
[6] Id. at 52. In their complaint petitioners identified each of the
respondents’ relationship to Consuelo:
(a) Benigno Tappa is the son-in-law of Consuelo and the
husband of the latter’s deceased daughter.
He built his house on the disputed property and leased it to an
unidentified individual.
(b) Jerry Reyna is the grandson of Consuelo. He built a house of permanent materials on
the subject land where he and his family reside.
(c) Saturnino Cambri is married to Nelly Quizan Cambri,
the granddaughter of Consuelo. He built
a house within the subject land occupied by him and his family.
(d) Spouses Francisco and Maria Ligutan, the latter being
the daughter of Consuelo, also live in a
house of permanent materials situated on the subject lot.
[7]
[8]
[9] Art.
19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.
In
claims for damages, Article 19 of the Civil Code is read in relation with
Article 21 of the same, to wit:
Art.
21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
[10] Rollo, p. 53-54.
[11] The
RTC’s reasoning was based on Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691:
SECTION 1.
Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the “Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 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 actions 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.
[12] Rollo,
p. 25.
[13] Section
1. Who
may file petition. Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or
any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof,
bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any
question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his
rights or duties, thereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to
quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate
ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.
[14] Rollo, pp. 33 and 34.
[15]
[16] G.R.
No. 168222,
[17] Rollo, pp. 35-39.
[18]
[19] Id
[20]
[21] Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R.
No. 159357,
[22] Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium (6th
revised ed.), p. 692.
[23] De Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147932, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 71, 80; Melchor v. Gironella, 491 Phil. 653, 658-659 (2005); Social Security Commission v. Court of Appeals, 482 Phil. 449, 462 (2004).
[24] Velarde v. Social Justice Society, supra note 21 at 294.
[25] Manila Electric Company v. Philippine
Consumers Foundation, Inc., 425 Phil. 65, 82 (2002); Rosello-Bentir v. Leanda, 386 Phil. 802, 813-814 (2000).
[26] Tambunting, Jr. v. Sumabat, G.R. 144101,
[27] Hilario v.
[28] 484
Phil. 766, 778-779 (2004).
[29] Yee v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 141393,