Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Exception: Ejectment case may not be joined with an action within the
jurisdiction of the RTC as the same comes within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the MTC.
However, if a party invokes the jurisdiction of the court, he cannot
thereafter challenge the courts jurisdiction in the same case. He is barred
by estoppel from doing so. (Hinog vs. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12,
2005)
N.B. As to joinder in the MTC, it must have jurisdiction over ALL THE
CAUSES OF ACTION and must have common venue.
4. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery
of money, jurisdiction is determined by the AGGREGATE OR TOTAL
AMOUNT claimed (totality rule).
N.B. The totality rule applies only to the MTC totality of claims cannot
exceed the jurisdictional amount of the MTC.
There is no totality rule for the RTC because its jurisdictional amount is
without limit. Exc. In tax cases where the limit is below P1 million.
Amounts of P1 million or more fall within the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Lack of legal capacity to sue plaintiffs general disability to sue, such as
on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical
personality or any other general disqualifications of a party.
Plaintiffs lack of legal capacity to sue is a ground for motion to dismiss
(Rule 16, Sec. 1[d]).
Ex. A foreign corporation doing business without a license lacks legal
capacity to sue.
Lack of personality to sue the fact that plaintiff is not the real party in
interest.
Plaintiffs lack of personality to sue is a ground for a motion to dismiss
based on the fact that the complaint, on its face, states no cause of action
(Rule 16, Sec. 1 [g]) (Evangelista vs. Santiago, 457 SCRA 744 [2005])
A suit may only be instituted by the real party in interest. The original
petition was instituted by Win, which is a SEC-registered corporation. It
filed a collection of sum of money suit which involved a construction
contract entered into by petitioner and Multi-Rich, a sole proprietorship.
The counsel of Win wanted to change the name of the plaintiff in the suit
to Multi-Rich. The change cannot be countenanced. The plaintiff in the
collection suit is a corporation. The name cannot be changed to that of a
sole proprietorship. Again, a sole proprietorship is not vested with
juridical personality to file or defend an action. (Excellent Quality Apparel,
Inc. vs. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 175048, February 10, 2009)
SELECTION OF COURT
Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the time petitioner filed
his suit in the trial court, statutory law vests on Regional Trial Courts
exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation. An action for specific performance, such as petitioners suit to
enforce the Agreement on joint child custody, belongs to this species of
actions. (Herald Black Dacasin vs. Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No.
168785, February 5, 2010)
The arbitration clause is a commitment on the part of the parties to
submit to arbitration the disputes covered since that clause is binding,
and they are expected to abide by it in good faith. Clearly, the RTC should
not have taken cognizance of the collection suit. The presence of the
arbitration clause vested jurisdiction on the CIAC over all construction
disputes between Petitioner and Multi-Rich. The RTC does not have
jurisdiction. (Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. vs. Win Multi Rich Builders,
Inc., represented by its president, Wilson G. Chua, G.R. No. 175048,
February 10, 2009)
What is hierarchy of courts?
Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the
Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy
cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals.
Rationale: (a) to prevent inordinate demands upon the SCs time and
attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
jurisdiction, and (b) to prevent further overcrowding of the SCs docket.
Thus, although the SC, CA and the RTC have CONCURRRENT jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner
unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
The SC will NOT ENTERTAIN DIRECT RESORT to it unless the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and EXCEPTIONAL
AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, such as cases of national interest and
of serious implications, justify the extraordinary remedy of writ of
certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. (Hinog vs.
Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 [2005])
VENUE
The venue of the action for the nullification of the foreclosure sale is
properly laid with the Malolos RTC although two of the properties together
with the Bulacan properties are situated in Nueva Ecija. The venue of real
actions affecting properties found in different provinces is determined by
the SINGULARITY or PLURALITY of the transactions involving said parcels
of land. Where said parcels are the object of one and the same
country; Thus, the service of summons was made at her residence with
her husband, Alfredo P. Agudo, acknowledging receipt thereof. Alfredo was
presumably of suitable age and discretion, who was residing in that place
and,therefore, was competent to receive the summons on private
respondent's behalf. The RTC had indeed acquired jurisdiction over the
person of private respondent when the latter's counsel entered his
appearance on private respondent's behalf, without qualification and
without questioning the propriety of the service of summons, and even
filed two Motions for Extension of Time to File Answer. (Palma vs. Galvez ,
G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010)
Pursuant to Sec. 14, Rule 14, summons by publication applies in any
action. The rule does not distinquish whether the action is in personam, in
rem or quasi in rem. It authorizes summons by publication whatever the
action may be as long as the identity of the defendant is unknown or his
whereabouts are unknown. (Santos vs. PNOC Exploration Corporation, G.R.
No. 170943, September 23, 2008)
For substituted service to be justified, the following circumstances must
be clearly established: (a) personal service of summons within a
reasonable time was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the
party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age
and discretion residing at the partys residence or upon a competent
person in charge of the partys office or place of business. Failure to do so
would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
However, we frown upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the
spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that governs. In his
Return, Sheriff Potente declared that he was refused entry by the security
guard in Alabang Hills twice. The latter informed him that petitioner
prohibits him from allowing anybody to proceed to her residence
whenever she is out. It was impossible for the sheriff to effect personal or
substituted service of summons upon petitioner. Considering her strict
instruction to the security guard, she must bear its consequences. Thus,
summons has been properly served upon petitioner and it has acquired
jurisdiction over her. ( Robinson vs. Miralles, G.R. No. 163584, December
12, 2006)
In case of substituted service, there should be a report indicating that the
person who received the summons in the defendants behalf was one with
whom the defendant had a relation of confidence ensuring that the latter
would actually receive the summons. Here, petitioner failed to show that
the security guard who received the summons in respondents behalf
shared such relation of confidence that respondent would surely receive
the summons. Hence, we are unable to accept petitioners contention
that service on the security guard constituted substantial compliance with
the requirements of substituted service. (Orion Security Corporation vs.
Kalfam Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 163287, April 27, 2007)
ex parte. The same provision also sets down guidelines on the nature and
extent of the relief that may be granted. In particular, the courts
judgment "shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from that
prayed for nor award unliquidated damages." (Gajudo vs. Traders Royal
Bank, supra)
DISCOVERY PROCEDURES
The importance of discovery procedures is well recognized by the Court. It
approved A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on July 13, 2004 which provided for the
guidelines to be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the
conduct of pre-trial and use of deposition-discovery measures. Under A.M.
No. 03-1-09-SC, trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring parties
to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for
admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use
of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rule 27 and 28
within 5 days from the filing of the answer. The parties are likewise
required to submit, at least 3 days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs,
containing among others a manifestation of the parties of their having
availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or
referral to commissioners. (Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. vs. Ley
Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No. 147143, March 10, 2006)
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Rule 34, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, provides that a judgment on the
pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. The
essential question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.
A judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant, who is the
party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim; or to
obtain a declaratory relief. (Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
G.R. No. 156304, October 23, 2006)
Judgment on the pleadings is improper when the answer to the complaint
tenders several issues. A motion for judgment on the pleadings admits the
truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing party and
the judgment must rest on those allegations taken together with such
other allegations as are admitted in the pleadings. It is proper when an
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party's pleading. However, when it appears that
not all the material allegations of the complaint were admitted in the
answer for some of them were either denied or disputed, and the
defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if proven, would
have the effect of nullifying plaintiff's main cause of action, judgment on
the pleadings cannot be rendered. (Municipality of Tiwi vs. Betito, G.R.
No. 171873, July 9, 2010)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
For summary judgment to be proper, two (2) requisites must concur: (1)
there must be no genuine issue on any material fact, except for the
amount of damages; and (2) the moving party must be entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.
When, on their face, the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary
judgment is not proper. An issue is genuine if it requires the
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE as distinguished from a sham, fictitious,
contrived or false claim. The trial courts decision was merely
denominated as summary judgment. But in essence, it is actually
equivalent to a judgment on the merits, making the rule on summary
judgment inapplicable in this case. (Ontimare vs. Elep, G.R. No. 159224,
January 20, 2006).
When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there
is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary
judgment is called for. The party who moves for summary judgment has
the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of
fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so
as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts have limited
authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is
clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as
pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for
summary judgment cannot take the place of trial (Asian Construction and
Development Corp. vs. PCIB, G.R. No. 153827, April 25, 2006).
Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no
genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of evidence in a fullblown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues,
when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are
not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must
ensue as a matter of law. The determinative factor, therefore, in a motion
for summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as
to any material fact. (Philippine Bank Of Communications vs. Spouses Go ,
G.R. No. 175514, February 14, 2011)
The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that summary judgment on an
action is in order.Under the applicable provisions of Rule 35, the defending
party or the claimant, as the case may be, must invoke the rule on
summary judgment by filing a motion. The adverse party must be notified
of the motion for summary judgment and furnished with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions before hearing is conducted. More
importantly, a summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law. (Pineda vs. Guevara, G.R. No. 143188, February 14,
2007).
TRIAL
merits, but shall decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented in
the lower court, without prejudice to the admission of the amended
pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice. (Encarnacion
vs. Amigo, G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006).
Inferior courts have jurisdiction to resolve questions of ownership
whenever it is necessary to decide the question of possession in an
ejectment case.
The RTC erred when it agreed with the MTCs decision to dismiss the case.
At first glance, it appears that based on the P13,300.00 assessed value of
the subject property as declared by respondents, the RTC would have no
jurisdiction over the case. But the above-quoted provision refers to the
original jurisdiction of the RTC. Section 22 of BP 129 vests upon the RTC
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Clearly then, the
amount involved is immaterial for purposes of the RTCs appellate
jurisdiction. All cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the
RTC irrespective of the amount involved (Serrano vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No.
162366, November 10, 2006).
Appeal from RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction petition for review under Rule 42.
Since the unlawful detainer case was filed with the MTC and affirmed by
the RTC, petitioners should have filed a Petition for Review with the Court
of Appeals under Rule 42 and not a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.
However, we consider this to have been remedied by the timely filing of
the Motion for Reconsideration on the following day. Section 3, Rule 50 of
the Rules of Court allows the withdrawal of appeal at any time, as a
matter of right, before the filing of the appellees brief. Applying this rule
contextually, the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration may be deemed
as an effective withdrawal of the defective Notice of Appeal. (Ross Rica
Sales Center, Inc. vs. Ong, G.R. No. 132197, August 16, 2005)
No petition for relief in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
While Rule 38 uses the phrase any court, it refers only to
Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts. The procedure in the CA
and the Supreme Court are governed by separate provisions of the Rules
of Court. There is no provision in the Rules of Court making the petition
for rellief applicable in the CA or this Court. (Purcon vs. MRM Philippines,
Inc., G.R. No. 182718, September 26, 2008)
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
Section 1, Rule 47 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the
remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders/resolutions of a
Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where "the
the Rules of Court. (DBP vs. Spouses Gatal, G.R. No. 138567, March 4,
2005).
Execution of money judgments under Rule 39, Sec. 9 promissory note not
allowed.
The law mandates that in the execution of a money judgment, the
judgment debtor shall pay either in cash, certified bank check payable to
the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the
latter. Nowhere does the law mention promissory notes as a form of
payment. The only exception is when such form of payment is acceptable
to the judgment debtor. But it was obviously not acceptable to
complainant, otherwise she would not have filed this case against
respondent sheriff. In fact, she objected to it because the promissory
notes of the defendants did not satisfy the money judgment in her favor.
(Dagooc vs. Erlina, A.M. No. P-04-1857 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1429-P),
March 16, 2005)
Venue of action for revival of judgment
If the action for revival of judgment affects title to or possession of real
property, or interest therein, then it is a real action that must be filed with
the court of the place where the real property is located. (Infante vs. Aran
Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 156596, August 24, 2007)
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Improper issuance and service of writ of attachment
A distinction should be made between issuance and implementation of the
writ of attachment. This is necessary to determine when jurisdiction over
the defendant should be acquired to validly implement the writ.
The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages:
first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ
of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third,
the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained, but once
the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant (Mangila vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
125027, August 12, 2002, 387 SCRA 162).
Preference of levy on attachment duly registered over a prior unregistered
sale
The settled rule is that levy on attachment, duly registered, takes
preference over a prior unregistered sale. The preference created by the
levy on attachment is not diminished even by the subsequent registration
of the prior sale. This is so because an attachment is a proceeding in
rem. It is against the particular property, enforceable against the whole
world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached
territorial limits of the trial court, thus the mortgagor is left without
remedy as to the properties located outside the jurisdiction of the issuing
court unless an application for injunction is made with another court which
has jurisdiction over the latter court (Benguet Management Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals, September 18, 2003, 411 SCRA 347).
CHANGE IN THE RULE
The last paragraph which was added to Section 5, Rule 58 states that a
higher court (RTC, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals)
which issues a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court, board,
officer or quasi-judicial agency must decide the main case or petition
within six (6) months from the issuance of the writ. (AM 07-7-12,
effective December 27, 2007).
Purpose: in order not to unduly delay the main case lodged in the lower
court.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
A petition for declaratory relief should be brought in the appropriate
regional trial court. The purpose of the petition is to ask the court to
determine any question of construction or validity arising from the sujbect
matter thereof , and for the declaration of rights and duties thereunder.
Hence, the subject matter of such petition raises issues which are not
capable of pecuniary estimation and must be filed in the RTC (Sec. 19 [1],
BP 129; Sec. 1, Rule 63). It would be error to file the petition the petition
with the Supreme Court which has no original jurisdiction to entertain a
petition for declaratory relief (Ortega vs. Quezon City Government, G.R.
No. 161400, September 2, 2005).
However, where the action is for quieting of title which is a similar remedy
under the second paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 63, the jurisdiction will
depend upon the assessed value of the property.
Re-filing of petition for certiorari should be done within the 60-day
period.Where the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition for
certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 69744 for non-submission of a non-forum
shopping certification was without prejudice and petitioner could have refiled such petition, such re-filing should still be done within the prescribed
period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or
not later than sixty days from notice of the assailed Order of the RTC.
(Estrera vs. CA, G.R. No. 154235-36, August 16, 2006)
CHANGES IN THE RULE
Period to file petition for certiorari now inextendible. Last paragraph of
Section 4, Rule 65: No extension of time to file the petition shall be
granted except for compelling reasons and in no case exceeding fifteen
(15) days has been DELETED by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, effective December
27, 2007. Hence, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60
days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for
reconsideration.
If the Court intended to retain the authority of the proper courts to grant
extensions under Section 4 of Rule 65, the paragraph providing for such
authority would have been preserved. The removal of the said paragraph
under the amendment by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC of Section 4, Rule 65 simply
meant that there can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period
within which to file a petition for certiorari. (Laguna Metts Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009)
A. M. No. 07-7-12 has also amended the second paragraph of Sec.
4:
If the petition relates to an act or omission of a municipal trial court or of
a corporation, board, officer or person, it shall be filed with the Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by
the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals whether
or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or with the
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If the petition
involves an act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be
cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
In election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or regional
trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on
Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
Following the hierarchy of courts, no certiorari against the RTC shall be
filed with the Supreme Court. This will help prevent the clogging of the
Supreme Courts dockets as litigants will be discouraged from filing
petitions directly with the Supreme Court.
Section 7.
Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. - The court in
which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings,
and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties
pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of
the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from
further proceeding in the case.
The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10)
days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or
tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction,
or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with
the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge
bond. (PNB vs. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29,
2005
A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to prevent an extrajudicial
foreclosure, only upon a clear showing of a violation of the mortgagors
unmistakable right. Unsubstantiated allegations of denial of due process
and prematurity of a loan are not sufficient to defeat the mortgagees
unmistakable right to an extrajudicial foreclosure. (Selegna Management
and Development Corporation vs. UCPB, G.R. No. 165662, May 31, 2006)
An action to invalidate the mortgage or the foreclosure sale is not a valid
ground to oppose issuance of writ of possession .
As a rule, any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its
foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of
possession. Regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for
annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself, the purchaser is
entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice of course to the
eventual outcome of said case. (Sps. Arquiza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 160479, June 8, 2005)
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
In forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be
recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that the
only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence,
the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could
have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use
and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have
suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material
possession. (Teraa vs. Hon. De Sagun, G.R. No. 152131, April 29,
2009;Dumo vs. Espinas, G.R. No. 141962, January 25, 2006)
The judgment rendered in an action for unlawful detainer shall be
conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind
the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment
would not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the
land or building. Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that
when the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue
of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession. (Roberts vs. Papio, G.R. No. 166714, February 9,
2007)
Accion publicianais one for the recovery of possession of the right to
possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit filed after the
expiration of one year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from
the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. (Hilario, etc., et. al.
vs. Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 160384, April 29, 2005)
Does the RTC have jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession
regardless of the value of the property involved?
NO. The doctrine 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
(Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155179. August 24, 2007)
Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction
"in all civil actions which involve possession of real property." However, if
the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed
P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the
municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover
possession of real property (Atuel vs. Valdez, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA
517, 528).
All cases involving title to or possession of real property with an assessed
value of less than P20,000.00 if outside Metro Manila, fall under the
original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court. (Aliabo v. Carampatan,
G.R. No. 128922, March 16, 2001, 354 SCRA 548, 552).
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. 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. (Laresma v. Abellana, G.R. No. 140973, November
11, 2004, 442 SCRA 156; Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, April 29,
2005, 457 SCRA 815).
A complaint for reconveyance of a parcel of land which involves title to or
interest in real property should allege the assessed value of the land .
The complaint specified only the market value or estimated value which is
P15,000.00. In the absence of an assessed value, or in lieu thereof, the
estimated value may be alleged.
Sec. 22 of BP 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691 (where the assessed value
of the real property does not exceed P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 in Metro
Manila) grants the MTC exclusive jurisdiction over subject case.The nature
of an action is determined not by what is stated in the caption of the
complaint but its allegations and the reliefs prayed for. Where the
ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to real property, it
should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed
value of the property subject thereof. (Barangay Piapi vs. Talip, 469 SCRA
409 [2005]).
The determining jurisdictional element for the accion reivindicatoria 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. 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. . (Hilario vs. Salvador, G.R.
No. 160384. April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 815)
The actions envisaged in the aforequoted provisions (Secs. 19 and 33. BP
129, as amended by RA 7691) are accion publiciana and reivindicatoria. To
determine which court has jurisdiction over the action, the complaint must
allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or
the interest thereon.The complaint does not contain any allegation of the
assessed value of Lot 4-E covered by TCT No. 47171. There is, thus, no
showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC had exclusive
jurisdiction over the action of the respondent.
Moreover, as gleaned from the receipt of realty tax payments issued to the
respondent, the assessed value of the property in 1993 was P8,300.00.
Patently then, the Municipal Trial Court of Aloguinsan, Cebu, and not the
Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, had exclusive jurisdiction over the
action of the respondent. Hence, all the proceedings in the RTC, including
its decision, are null and void (Laresma vs. Abellana, G.R. No. 140973,
November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 156; Aliabo vs. Carampatan, G.R. No.
128922, March 16, 2001, 354 SCRA 548).; Ouano vs. PGTT Int'l. Investment
Corporation, G.R. No. 134230, July 17, 2002, 384 SCRA 589) .
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession
which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year (Canlas vs. Tubil, G.R.
No. 184285, September 25, 2009).
Mandatory allegations for the municipal trial court to acquire jurisdiction
over forcible entry
First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the
property. Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his
possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. If the
alleged dispossession did not occur by any of these means, the proper
recourse is to file not an action for forcible entry but a plenary action to
recover possession with the Regional Trial Court (Benguet Corporation vs.
Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc., G.R. No.155343, September 2, 2005)..
What determines jurisdiction in unlawful detainer?
To vest the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant, it is
necessary that the complaint should embody such a statement of facts as
brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes
provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. The
complaint must show enough on its face the court jurisdiction without
resort to parol testimony.
The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. 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 reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.
(Valdez, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 132424, May 4, 2006)
Possession by tolerance becomes unlawful from the time of demand to
vacate.
Petitioners cause of action for unlawful detainer springs from
respondents failure to vacate the questioned premises upon his demand
sometime in 1996. Within one (1) year therefrom, or on November 6,
1996, petitioner filed the instant complaint.
Possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful
when the possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by
the owner. (Santos vs. Sps. Ayon, G.R. No. 137013, May 6, 2005)
Where the period of the lease has expired and several demands were sent
to the lessee to vacate, when should the one year period to file unlawful
detainer be reckoned? From the date of the original demand or from the
date of the last demand?
From the date of the original demand if the subsequent demands are
merely in the nature of reminders or reiterations of the original demand.
Demand or notice to vacate is not a jurisdictional requirement when the
action is based on the expiration of the lease.. The law requires notice to
be served only when the action is due to the lessees failure to pay or the
failure to comply with the conditions of the lease. The one-year period is
thus counted from the date of first dispossession. The allegation that the
lease was on a month-to-month basis is tantamount to saying that the
lease expired every month. Since the lease already expired mid-year in
1995, as communicated in petitioners letter dated July 1, 1995, it was at
that time that respondents occupancy became unlawful. (Racaza vs.
Gozum, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 313)