ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 147739.July 2, 2001]

AGUILAR et al. vs. FILIPINAS AGUILA SALGADO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 2 2001.

G.R. No. 147739(Elsie N. Aguilar, represented by her executor Roy N. Aguilar vs. Filipinas Aguila Salgado, et al.)

On August 24, 1993, private respondent Filipinas Aguila Salgado filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Elsie N. Aguilar. The action, docketed as Civil Case No. 93-7994, entitled "Filipinas Aguila Salgado v. Elsie Aguilar," was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Bacolod City. Private respondent alleged that on January 15, 1979, she entered into a contract to sell with Elsie Aguilar with regard to two parcels of land, each consisting of 269 square meters, designated as Lots 13 and 14, Block 14, located at Dalusan, Sagay, Negros Occidental; that the consideration thereof was P35,000.00; and that even after the full payment of the contract price and despite several demands, Elsie Aguilar failed to deliver to private respondent the title to Lot 14, Block 14.

Elsie Aguilar moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, alleging that it was the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, not the RTC, which had jurisdiction over the matter.

Meanwhile, on October 10, 1994, private respondent filed a "verified creditor's claim" for P200,000.00 before the RTC, Branch 43, Bacolod City, docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 93-8158 and entitled "Testate estate of the late Elsie Nichols Aguilar, Clayton N. Aguilar, executor/administrator, Filipinas Aguila Salgado, creditor/claimant." Private respondent alleged that after the Rural Bank of Sagay had released its mortgage on Lot 14, Block 14, the subject lot was again mortgaged by the decedent's other son, Roy N. Aguilar, to another person and, by reason thereof, private respondent sought to lay claim against the estate of Elsie N. Aguilar.

On September 6, 1995, the RTC, Branch 49, denied Elsie N. Aguilar's motion to dismiss. On September 16, 1995, Elsie N. Aguilar filed a motion for reconsideration and, on November 13, 1995, a supplement to the motion for reconsideration on the sole ground that private respondent committed forum-shopping in filing a claim in Spec. Proc. No. 93-8158 before RTC, Branch 43, Bacolod City.

In an order, dated May 8, 1998, RTC, Branch 49, denied Elsie Aguilar's motion for reconsideration.

In the meantime, Elsie Aguilar died. Her estate, through her executor, Clayton N. Aguilar, filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, but the petition, as was the motion for reconsideration later filed, was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

The first question concerns the jurisdiction of the RTC of Bacolod City. Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the regular courts have jurisdiction over the sale involving subdivision lots. Petitioner cites Alcasid v. Court of Appeals (217 SCRA 437 (1993)) in support of her petition.

This argument has no basis. The Alcasid case involves the sale of subdivision lots. In this case, petitioner filed her "motion for reconsideration with leave to present oral and documentary evidence" in which she submitted the following: the petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the late Elsie N. Aguilar denominating the subject parcel of land as "Sagay subdivision"; that upon Elsie's death, the "Sagay subdivision" was managed by the decedent's son Clayton, who issued official receipts in the name of the "Sagay subdivision" to private respondent in connection with the sale of Lot 14, Block 14; the subdivision plan of "Sagay subdivision" which included Lots 13 and 14, Block 14; pictures showing the location of the house of private respondent built on Lot 14, Block 14 within the "Sagay subdivision"; and the testimony of one Rodolfo Dingcong, a resident of Barangay Poblacion I, Sagay, Negros Occidental stating that the owner of "Sagay subdivision" was the late Elsie N. Aguilar and that the house of private respondent built on Lot 14, Block 14, was located within the "Sagay subdivision." The settled rule, however, is that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss for the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant otherwise. Accordingly, the averments in the complaint, and not any evidence contradicting or varying such allegations and the character of the relief sought, determine the jurisdiction of the court (See Serdoncillo v. Benolirao, 297 SCRA 448 (1998)). A perusal of private respondent's complaint for specific performance with damages shows that the present case falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC, Branch 49, pursuant to �19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. Even petitioner's contract to sell never referred to the subject lot as a subdivision lot. The complaint alleged a transaction involving an agreement between the late Elsie N. Aguilar, as the seller, and private respondent, as the buyer, which required the seller to deliver the title to the property to the buyer upon full payment by the private respondent-buyer of the purchase price. As Elsie N. Aguilar allegedly failed to comply with the obligation to deliver the title to Lot 14, Block 14 to private respondent, the latter filed a complaint for specific performance before the RTC to enforce her right.

As �1, par. c of Presidential Decree No. 1344, amending Presidential Decree No. 957, provides that the HLURB shall have jurisdiction over actions for specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman, it is clear that the law does not apply to this case.

The other question in this case concerns petitioner's claim that private respondent is guilty of forum-shopping. Petitioner argues that the filing of the "verified creditor's claim" (Spec. Proc. No. 93-8158) in Branch 43 of the RTC of Bacolod City in addition to the case for specific performance initiated before Branch 49 of the same court, constitutes forum-shopping and consequently both actions should be dismissed.

As the Court of Appeals ruled, however, petitioner failed to raise this issue in her motion to dismiss before the RTC, Branch 49, where Civil Case No. 93-7994 was pending. Hence, the same cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. It is true that when petitioner filed her motion to dismiss on January 4, 1994, the ground for forum-shopping did not yet exist as Spec. Proc. No. 93-8 158 was filed only on October 7, 1994.

But petitioner could have raised the question in her motion for reconsideration of the order denying her motion to dismiss. At that time, the claim in Spec. Proc. No. 93-8 158 had already been filed. Or petitioner could have raised the matter in Spec. Proc. No. 93-8 158 by seeking the dismissal of the claim and the action in this case. This she did not do.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com