THIRD
DIVISION
ADELIA
C. MENDOZA, for herself andas Administratix of
the Intestate Estateof the late NORBERTO B. MENDOZA,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 122646
March 14, 1997
-versus-
HON. ANGELITO C. TEH, Presiding Judge,Branch 87, RTC, Rosario, Batangas,
SPS.chanrobles virtual law libraryHERMINIO & CLARITA
TAYAG, SPS. GEORGET. TIGLAO & CLARIZZA T. TIGLAO
and/or TEOFILO M. ESGUERRA, LEONOR M.
ESGUERRA,LETICIA M. ESGUERRA, JOEL M.
ESGUERRA,RICARDO M. ESGUERRA, VOLTAIRE E.
TAYAG,BENITO I. TAYAG, MERLIE MALIG,
ALBERTO T.chanrobles virtual law libraryTAYAG, ROSEMARIE T. TAYAG, LETICIA
E. LULUand the REGISTER OF DEEDS for the
Province
of
Batangas,
Respondents.
| D
E C I S I O N
FRANCISCO,
J
.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On October 28,
1994, petitioner "for herself
and as administratrix of the intestate estate" of her deceased husband
Norberto Mendoza filed before the Regional Trial Court [RTC] of
Batangas
a complaint for "reconveyance of title [involving parcels of lot in
Batangas]
and damages with petition for preliminary injunction" docketed as Civil
Case No. R94-009.[1]
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of said complaint states:
(2) That Adelia C. Mendoza likewise
represents
her co-plaintiff, the Intestate Estate of the late Norberto B. Mendoza
in her capacity as the surviving wife of the deceased Norberto B.
Mendoza
who died on December 29, 1993;
(3) That Adelia C. Mendoza should be
appointed
by this Honorable Court as the judicial administratrix of her
co-plaintiff
for purposes of this case;[2]
Private
respondents filed on January 21, 1995[3]
their "answer with motion to dismiss"[4]
alleging among others that the complaint states no cause of action and
that petitioner's demand had already been paid.[5]
On February 17, 1995, private respondents filed another pleading
entitled
"motion to dismiss" invoking, this time, lack of jurisdiction, lack of
cause of action, estoppel, laches and prescription. In support of their
argument of lack of jurisdiction, private respondents contend that a
special
proceedings case for appointment of administratrix of an estate cannot
be incorporated in the ordinary action for reconveyance. In her
opposition
to the motions, petitioner asserts among others, that the allegation
seeking
appointment as administratrix is only an incidental matter which is not
even prayed for in the complaint. Replying to the opposition, private
respondents
argued that since petitioner's husband resided in Quezon City at the
time
of his death, the appointment of the estate administratrix should be
filed
in the RTC of that place in accordance with Section 1 Rule 73 of the
Rules
of Court. Accordingly, it is their argument that the RTC of Batangas
has
no jurisdiction over the case.
In a Resolution
dated June 14, 1995, the RTC of
Batangas thru respondent Judge Teh "dismissed without prejudice" the
complaint
for lack of jurisdiction "on the ground that the rules governing an
ordinary
civil action and a special proceeding are different." Accordingly, the
lower court found it unnecessary to discuss the other grounds raised in
the motion to dismiss.[6]
Upon denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, he filed this
petition
under Rule 45 on pure questions of law. The Court thereafter gave due
course
to the petition.cralaw:red
The issue is
whether or not in an action for reconveyance,
an allegation seeking appointment as administratrix of an estate, would
oust the RTC of its jurisdiction over the whole case?
We rule in the
negative.cralaw:red
First, Section 19
of B. P. 129 as amended by R.
A. 7691 provides:
Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.-
Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
[1] In all civil actions in which the
subject
of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
Likewise,
Section 33 of the same law provides that:
Metropolitan Trial Court shall exercise:
[1] Exclusive original jurisdiction
over
civil
actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate. [Emphasis
ours].
The above law
is clear. An action for reconveyance,
which involves title to property worth millions of pesos, such as the
lots
subject of this case, is cognizable by the RTC. Likewise falling within
its jurisdiction are actions "incapable of pecuniary estimation," such
as the appointment of an administratrix for an estate. Even the Rules
on
venue of estate proceedings [Section 1 of Rule 73][7]
impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of the RTC over petitions for
granting
of letters of administration. On the other hand, probate proceedings
for
the settlement of estate are within the ambit of either the RTC or MTC
depending on the net worth of the estate. By arguing that the
allegation
seeking such appointment as administratrix ousted the RTC of its
jurisdiction,
both public and private respondents confuse jurisdiction with venue.
Section
2 of Rule 4 as revised by Circular 13-95[8]
provides that actions involving title to property shall be tried in the
province where the property is located, in this case, Batangas.
The
mere fact that petitioner's deceased husband resides in Quezon City at
the time of his death affects only the venue but not the jurisdiction
of
the Court.[9]
Second, the cases
cited[10]
by private respondents are not at point as they involve settlement of
estate
where the probate court was asked to resolve questions of ownership of
certain properties. In the present suit, no settlement of estate
is involved, but merely an allegation seeking appointment as estate
administratrix
which does not necessarily involve settlement of estate that would have
invited the exercise of the limited jurisdiction of a probate court.
The
above allegation is not even a jurisdictional fact which must be stated
in an action for reconveyance. The Court, therefore, should have at
least,
proceeded with the reconveyance suit rather than dismiss the entire
case.cralaw:red
Third,
jurisprudential rulings that a probate
court cannot generally decide questions of ownership or title to
property[11]
is not applicable in this case, because: there is no settlement of
estate
involved and the RTC of Batangas was not acting as a probate court. It
should be clarified that whether a particular matter should be resolved
by the RTC in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited
probate
jurisdiction, is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of
procedure.[12]
Moreover, the instant action for reconveyance does not even invoke the
limited jurisdiction of a probate court.[13]
Considering that the RTC has jurisdiction, whether it be on the
reconveyance
suit or as to the appointment of an administratrix, it was improper for
respondent judge to dismiss the whole complaint for alleged lack of
jurisdiction.cralaw:red
Finally, judges
should not dismiss with precipitate
haste, complaints or petitions filed before them, just so they can
comply
with their administrative duty to dispose cases within 90 days at the
expense
of their judicial responsibility.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
Resolutions dated June 14, 1995
and November 14, 1995 of the RTC of Batangas are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
The trial court is ordered to immediately proceed with the disposition
of the case in accordance with this Decision.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_______________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Annex "C", Rollo, p. 73.
[2]
Rollo, p. 74.
[3]The RTC Resolution dated June
14,
1995 initially stated that the Answer was filed on January 27, 1995,
but
in the body of the Resolution, the said pleading was filed on January
21,
1995; Rollo, p. 54.
[4]
Annex "D", Rollo, p. 165.
[5]
Rollo, p. 170.
[6]
Rollo, p. 65.
[7]
Where estate of deceased persons settled. If the decedent is
an
inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a
citizen
or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration
granted,
and his estate settled, in the Regional Trial Court in the province in
which he resides at the time of death.
[8]Sec. 2, Rule 4 Venue in RTC.- [a] Actions affecting title
to
real property shall be commenced and tried in the province where the
property
or any part thereof lies. The Revised Circular which took effect on
August
1, 1995 states: Actions affecting title to or possession of real
property,
or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court
which
has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof, is situated.
[9]
Rodriguez vs. Borja, 17 SCRA 418 [1976].
[10]
Private respondents invoked before the lower court the cases of
Guzman
v. Anog, 37 Phil. 61 [1917], Ongsingco v. Tan, 97 Phil. 330
[1955],
Tagle v. Manalo, 105 Phil. 1124 [unrep. 1959]. These cases,
however,
involved settlement of an estate and not appointment of an
administrator
nor does it involved actions for reconveyance. The cases of Buermann v.
Casas, 10 Phil. 386 [1908] cited in their comment involves liquidation
of business. The other cases cited are Manalo v. Manalo, 65 Phil. 534
[1938],
Recto v. Dela Rosa. 75 SCRA 226 [1977] and Morales v. CFI of Cavite,
146
SCRA 373 [1986] which pertains to settlement of estates. The case of
Ferraris
v. Rodas, 65 Phil. 732 [1938] pertains to the power of an administrator
to lease estate properties.
[11]
Pascual vs. Pascual, 73 Phil. 561 [1942]; Alvarez vs. Espiritu,
14
SCRA 892 and 122 Phil. 229, 236 [1965]; Cunanan vs. Amparo, 80 Phil.
227,
232 [1948]; Lachenal vs. Salas, 71 SCRA 262, 266 [1966].
[12]
Coca vs. Borromeo, 81 SCRA 278, 283 [1978].
[13]
See Mangaliman vs. Gonzales, 36 SCRA 462 [1970]; Register of Deeds of
Pampanga
vs. PNB, 84 Phil. 600, 607 [1949]. |