CESAR HILARIO, as attorney-in-fact of Ibrahim Hiilario et al

vs. ALLAN SALVADOR, et al

FACTS:
On September 3, 1996, petitioners filed a complaint with RTC of Romblon
against the respondent based on the following allegations:
a. Salvador constructed his dwelling of mixed materials on the property of
the petitioners without the latters knowledge;
b. Demands to vacate have been made but Salvador averred that he sought
permission from the petitioners grandmother Concepcion;
c. Efforts to amicably settle were tried as evidenced by the Barangay
Certification but to no avail;
d. Unjustified refusal to vacate the property caused the petitioners suffer
shame, humiliation, wounded feelings, anxiety and sleepless nights; and
e. Petitioners have been constrained to engage the services of a lawyer to
protect their rights and interests
However, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action citing Section 33 of BP 129 and
contended that:
a. The complaint failed to state the assessed value of the land in dispute;
b. The complaint does not sufficiently identified and/or described the parcel
of land referred.
Said facts, according to the respondent were essential for determining the
jurisdiction of the court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter?
RULING:
RTC ruled that the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore
cognizable by the RTC
CA reversed the decision of the RTC upholding that the case is one of recovery
of ownership and real property and absent any allegation of the assessed
value, the MTC had exclusive jurisdiction
SC- ruled that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, thus, all
decisions rendered are null and void

The action of the petitioners filed on September 3, 1996 does not involve a
claim of ownership over the property. They allege that they are co-owners
thereof, and as such, entitled to its possession, and that the private respondent,
who was the defendant, constructed his house thereon in 1989 without their
knowledge and refused to vacate the property despite demands for him to do so.
They prayed that the private respondent vacate the property and restore
possession thereof to them.
When the petitioners filed their complaint on September 3, 1996, R.A. No.
7691 was already in effect.
The determining jurisdictional element for the accion reinvindicatoria is, as
RA 7691 discloses, the assessed value of the property in question. For
properties in the provinces, the RTC has jurisdiction if the assessed value
exceeds P20,000, and the MTC, if the value is P20,000 or below. An assessed
value can have reference only to the tax rolls in the municipality where the
property is located, and is contained in the tax declaration. In the case at bench,
the most recent tax declaration secured and presented by the plaintiffs-appellees
is Exhibit B. The loose remark made by them that the property was worth 3.5
million pesos, not to mention that there is absolutely no evidence for this, is
irrelevant in the light of the fact that there is an assessed value. It is the amount
in the tax declaration that should be consulted and no other kind of value, and as
appearing in Exhibit B, this is P5,950. The case, therefore, falls within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Romblon which has
jurisdiction over the territory where the property is located, and not the court a
quo.