ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
G.R.
No.
149554
-versus- SPOUSES TEOFEDO AMARILLO EMBUDO AND MARITES HUGUETE-EMBUDO, Respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is a Petition for Review assailing the orders dated June 27, 2001[1] and July 26, 2001[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. CEB-24925. On March 2, 2000, petitioner spouses Jorge and Yolanda Huguete instituted against respondent spouses Teofredo Amarillo Embudo and Marites Huguete-Embudo a complaint for "Annulment of TCT No. 99694, Tax Declaration No. 46493, and Deed of Sale, Partition, Damages and Attorney’s Fees," docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-24925 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7. Petitioners alleged that their son-in-law, respondent Teofredo, sold to them a 50-square meter portion of his 150-square meter parcel of land, known as Lot No. 1920-F-2, situated in San Isidro, Talisay, Cebu, for a consideration of P15,000.00; that Teofredo acquired the lot from Ma. Lourdes Villaber-Padillo by virtue of a deed of sale,[3] after which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 99694 was issued solely in his name; that despite demands, Teofredo refused to partition the lot between them.cralaw:red On March 15, 2001, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss[4] the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, arguing that the total assessed value of the subject land was only P15,000.00 which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, pursuant to Section 33(3)[5] of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691.[6] Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss[7] alleging that the subject matter of the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, as provided by Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, as amended.[8]chanrobles virtual law library The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[9] which was denied on July 26, 2001.cralaw:red Hence, this petition for review based on the following errors:chanrobles virtual law library I THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 33 (3) OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 129 IN UTTER DISREGARD OF SECTION 19 (1) OF THE SAME LAW AS WELL AS SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ENUNCIATED IN RUSSEL VS. VESTIL, 304 SCRA 738 (MARCH 17, 1999) WHICH, WITH DUE RESPECT, WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.cralaw:red II THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS WHO SEEK AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF AND THEREBY INVOKE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT IN THEIR COUNTERCLAIM ARE ESTOPPED TO DENY THE JURISDICTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT.[10] The petition lacks merit.cralaw:red Petitioners maintain that the complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is for the annulment of deed of sale and partition, and is thus incapable of pecuniary estimation. Respondents, on the other hand, insist that the action is one for annulment of title and since the assessed value of the property as stated in the complaint is P15,000.00, it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.cralaw:red The pertinent portions of the complaint alleged:chanrobles virtual law library
In Cañiza v. Court of Appeals,[12] it was held that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Moreover, in Singsong v. Isabela Sawmill,[13] we ruled that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether the jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).chanrobles virtual law library The reliance of the petitioners on the case of Russell v. Vestil[14] is misplaced. In the said case, petitioners sought the annulment of the document entitled, "Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Confirmation of Previous Oral Partition," whereby respondents declared themselves as the only heirs of the late Spouses Casimero and Cesaria Tautho to the exclusion of petitioners. Petitioners brought the action in order for them to be recognized as heirs in the partition of the property of the deceased. It was held that the action to annul the said deed was incapable of pecuniary estimation and the consequent annulment of title and partition of the property was merely incidental to the main action. Indeed, it was also ruled in said case:chanrobles virtual law library While actions under Section. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. x x x.[15] In the case at bar, the principal purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint was to secure title to the 50-square meter portion of the property which they purchased from respondents.cralaw:red Petitioners’ cause of action is based on their right as purchaser of the 50-square meter portion of the land from respondents. They pray that they be declared owners of the property sold. Thus, their complaint involved title to real property or any interest therein. The alleged value of the land which they purchased was P15,000.00, which was within the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Court. The annulment of the deed of sale between Ma. Lourdes Villaber-Padillo and respondents, as well as of TCT No. 99694, were prayed for in the complaint because they were necessary before the lot may be partitioned and the 50-square meter portion subject thereof may be conveyed to petitioners.cralaw:red Petitioners’ argument that the present action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation considering that it is for annulment of deed of sale and partition is not well-taken. As stated above, the nature of an action is not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where, as in this case, the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs 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.chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED. The Order dated June 27, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, dismissing Civil Case No. CEB-24925, and its Order dated July 26, 2001 denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, pp. 23-24; penned by Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr.
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|