ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136243. April 12, 1999]

ZENAIDA CASCOLAN vs. JAIME CO.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 12, 1999.

G.R. No. 136243 (Zenaida Cascolan vs. Jaime Co.)

Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages against respondent in the Municipal Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela. The complaint alleged that petitioner was the owner of a parcel of a land; that in order to pay the debt of her common-law spouse, she appointed respondent as her attorney-in-fact to mortgage or otherwise dispose of the said land; that respondent leased the land to one Pedro Roque for 12 years and the rentals were used to pay the debt; that when she asked respondent for the return of the title to her land, the latter failed to do so; that later on, she learned that respondent sold the land to spouses Agcaoili who secured a new transfer certificate of title in their names, thus, cancelling petitioner's certificate of title; that the said spouses in turn, sold the land to Zaldy Co who was also secured a certificate of title in his name and mortgages the land to Equitable Banking Corporation. Respondent, together with his co-defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action and for noncompliance with the Barangay Conciliation Law. The trial court denied the motion and, later, respondent's motion for reconsideration. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court then filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court which then ordered the MTC to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner, in turn, filed a petition for review in this Court. However, her petition was denied on January 29, 1999 for failure of petitioner to state in the affidavit of service the place of service of the petition on the respondents. Hence, this omnibus motion for reconsideration and motion for leave to file the amended petition. Petitioner alleges that she had substantially complied with the rules considering that respondent were duly furnished with copies of the petition as evidenced by registry receipts attached to the original copy of the petition filed with the Court.

Acting on the petitioner's motions, the Court RESOLVED to GRANT the same and REINSTATE the petition. However, after due consideration of the petition for review, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the same for lack of showing of any reversible error committed by the Regional Trial Court.

Petitioner contends that the MTC has jurisdiction over her complaint. This contention is devoid of merit. The RTC correctly ruled that-

[t]he principal action or remedy sought is the nullification of the deed of sale executed by petitioner Jaime Co in favor of the Spouses Dominador Agcaoili and Zenaida Tan and the deed of sale executed by the latter spouses in favor of Zaldy Jojo Co and the nullification of their respective certificate of title. Undoubtedly, the action is one the subject matter of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The MTC has no jurisdiction to try said case. It was an error for respondent judge not to have dismissed the case.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE