Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > August 2011 Resolutions > Name[G.R. No. 187300 : August 03, 2011] PECHATEN CORPORATION V. MILDRED TAMURA, HER HUSBAND "JOHN DOE," VIOLETA PAJUYO AND THOSE PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 August 2011 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 187300 (Pechaten Corporation v. Mildred Tamura, her husband "John Doe," Violeta Pajuyo and those persons claiming rights under them)

This resolves the petition for review of the Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing a publiciana  suit for lack of jurisdiction.

In November 2007, petitioner Pechaten Corporation (petitioner) filed an accion publiciana against respondents in the Regional Trial Court of Manila (trial court) to recover possession of a parcel of land in Sampaloc, Manila. Petitioner sought recovery after rescinding its contract to sell the property to respondent Mildred Tamura (Tamura) for the latter's alleged failure to pay the purchase price. Petitioner's complaint made no mention of the property's assessed value.

Respondents failed to file their Answer and were thus defaulted.

The trial court rendered judgment for petitioner and ordered respondents to vacate the property and pay monthly occupancy fee, attorney's fees and the costs. The trial court sustained petitioner's right to retake possession of the property following the rescission of the sales contract between petitioner and Tamura.

Respondents appealed to the CA.

The CA set aside the trial court's ruling and dismissed petitioner's complaint for the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. The CA grounded its ruling on the absence of any allegation in petitioner's complaint on the assessed value of the property, rendering it impossible to determine, under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), whether the case falls under the original jurisdiction of the trial court or the first level courts.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner assails the CA's ruling, citing jurisprudence allegedly holding that Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) are vested with original jurisdiction to take cognizance of acciones publiciana.

We deny the petition for lack of merit.

First. Before its amendment, Section 19(2) of BP 129 vested RTCs with exclusive and original jurisdiction over "all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property," including acciones publiciana. Since 15 April 1994, however, when RA 7691, amending BP 129, took effect, this jurisdiction was made concurrent with first level courts, depending on the assessed value of the contested property. RTCs retained jurisdiction over such actions "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)."^[2] Meanwhile, first level courts were vested with exclusive and original jurisdiction over similar actions not falling under the RTCs' jurisdictional limits.^[3]

When petitioner filed its case with the trial court on 23 November 2001, therefore, the trial court's jurisdiction hinged on the assessed value of the contested property. Petitioner's failure to allege such value in its complaint makes it impossible for the trial court to determine whether the suit falls under its jurisdictional limits. Thus, the trial court should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to its refiling in the proper court. Its failure to do so constituted error, of law which the CA correctly remedied on appeal.

Second. De Leon v. Court of Appeals,^[4] which petitioner cites as basis for its resort to the trial court, is not in point. That case involved a suit, filed with the RTC of Iloilo City, to terminate a lease contract and, consequently, recover possession of the leased property. On appeal from the Court of Appeals' ruling classifying the suit as accion interdictal falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts, we reversed and affirmed the RTC Iloilo's jurisdiction. We held that the complaint's cause of action, which called for a determination of the nature of the lease contract between the parties, is incapable of pecuniary estimation, thus falling under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTCs. Hence, the statement in De Leon that "a plenary action [such as accion publiciana] may be brought before the regional trial court.,"^[5] which petitioner highlights, is not the holding of that case but a mere obiter, occasioned by the Court's differentiation among the types of actions to recover de facto and de jure possession.

Nor do the other cases petitioner cites constitute relevant precedence. Except for two, none of the cases involved the question whether, after 15 April 1994, RTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over acciones publiciana.^[6] The two other cases sustaining the filing of such actions in different RTC branches assumed that the assessed value of the contested properties fell within the RTCs' jurisdictional limits.^[7] Subsequent jurisprudence involving acciones publiciana filed (in RTCs) earlier than petitioner's no longer makes such assumption;^[8] to that extent, the former rulings have been superseded.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Dated 9 August 2007 and Resolution dated 25 March 2009 penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring.

^[2] Section 19, BP 129, as amended. 

^[3] Section 33, BP 129, as amended. 

^[4] 315 Phil. 140(1995). 

^[5] Id. at 153. 

^[6] Sarmiento v. Cmirl of Appeals (320 Phil. 146 [1995J), Heirs of Melchor v. Melchor (461 Phil. 437 [2003]), Bejar v. Caluag (G.R. No. 171277, 15 February 2007, 516 SCRA 84), and Regis. Jr. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 153914, 31 July 2007, 528 SCRA 611) all involved ejectment suits properly filed before first level courts (the Municipal Trial Court of Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan; Municipal Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela; Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iligan City, respectively). Lopez v. David, Jr. (G.R. No. 152145, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 535) also concerned an ejectment suit filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City more than one year after the cause of action accrued, thus, on appeal, the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

^[7] Serdoncillo v. Spouses Benolirao, 358 Phil. 83 (1998) and Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Torres, 374 Phil. 529(1999). 

^[8] E.g. Hilario v. Salvador, 497 Phil. 327 (2005) (involving a complaint filed in the RTC of Romblon, Romblon on 3 September 1996); Laresma v. Abellana, 484 Phil. 766 (2004) (involving a complaint filed in the RTC of Toledo, Cebu on 24 May 1994).