March 1975 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > March 1975 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-25849 March 26, 1975 - ROBERTO LAPERAL v. PACIFICO CRUZ:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-25849. March 26, 1975.]
ROBERTO LAPERAL, applicant-appellee, v. PACIFICO CRUZ, Oppositor-Appellant.
SYNOPSIS
Oppositor-appellant impugns the decision of the trial court declaring the applicant-appellee as owner of a parcel of land with a market value of less than two hundred thousand pesos contending that the decision is contrary to the evidence and the law of the case. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals which has appellate jurisdiction.
SYLLABUS
1. APPEALS; JURISDICTION; COURT OF APPEALS HAS APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER CASES WHERE THE VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED IS LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS. — A court’s jurisdiction depends upon the state of facts existing at the time it is invoked. Thus, where the appeal was interposed when the law applicable (Sec. 17, Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Act 2613) vested the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction over civil cases wherein the amount involved exceeded two hundred thousand pesos, and it appears that the amount involved in the appeal in less than two hundred thousand pesos and that factual issues are raised, the case shall be transferred to the Court of Appeals, since the case falls within its jurisdiction.
R E S O L U T I O N
AQUINO, J.:
Pacifico Cruz appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dated May 20, 1965, declaring Roberto Laperal as the owner of Lot 3, described in the plan Psu-174263-B (Exh. F-2), with an area of seven hundred fifty-six (756) square meters, located at Barrio Tambo, Parañaque, Rizal (Land Registration Case No. 2499, LRC Case No. N-17572).
It is stated in Cruz’s notice of appeal that the decision is "contrary to the evidence and the law in this case."cralaw virtua1aw library
According to the application for registration the disputed land has a market value of five pesos a square meter (5, 22 Record on Appeal).
Cruz contends in his brief that the trial court erred in not finding that Lot 3 was formed by artificial means and not by accretion and in not declaring him as the true owner of the land.
A court’s jurisdiction depends upon the state of facts existing at the time it is invoked (People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715).
When the appeal was interposed in this case on September 9, 1965, the law applicable was section 17 of the Judiciary Law as amended by Republic Act No. 2613 which vested this Court with appellate jurisdiction over civil cases wherein the value of the real estate involved exceeded two hundred thousand pesos. Considering that the value of the land in litigation is less than two hundred thousand pesos and that factual issues are raised by the appellant, this case falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, this case, which was erroneously appealed to this Court, is transferred to the Court of Appeals (Sec. 31, Judiciary Law).
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Fernandez, JJ., concur.
It is stated in Cruz’s notice of appeal that the decision is "contrary to the evidence and the law in this case."cralaw virtua1aw library
According to the application for registration the disputed land has a market value of five pesos a square meter (5, 22 Record on Appeal).
Cruz contends in his brief that the trial court erred in not finding that Lot 3 was formed by artificial means and not by accretion and in not declaring him as the true owner of the land.
A court’s jurisdiction depends upon the state of facts existing at the time it is invoked (People v. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715).
When the appeal was interposed in this case on September 9, 1965, the law applicable was section 17 of the Judiciary Law as amended by Republic Act No. 2613 which vested this Court with appellate jurisdiction over civil cases wherein the value of the real estate involved exceeded two hundred thousand pesos. Considering that the value of the land in litigation is less than two hundred thousand pesos and that factual issues are raised by the appellant, this case falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, this case, which was erroneously appealed to this Court, is transferred to the Court of Appeals (Sec. 31, Judiciary Law).
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Fernandez, JJ., concur.
