FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 158121. December 12, 2007.]

HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA, SR. NAMELY:
TERESITA CONCHA-PARAN, VALERIANO P. CONCHA, JR.,
RAMON
P.
CONCHA,
EDUARDO
P.
CONCHA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN, REYNALDO P.
CONCHA, ALBERTO P. CONCHA, BERNARDO P. CONCHA
and GLORIA P. CONCHA-NUNAG, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES
GREGORIO J. LUMOCSO 1(1) and BIENVENIDA GUYA,
CRISTITA J. LUMOCSO VDA. DE DAAN, AND SPOUSES
JACINTO J. LUMOCSO and BALBINA T. LUMOCSO, 2(2)
respondents.

DECISION

PUNO, C.J :
p

On appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the

decision 3(3) and resolution 4(4) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
59499, annulling the resolutions 5(5) and order 6(6) of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Dipolog City, Branch 9, in Civil Case Nos. 5188, 5433 and 5434 which
denied the separate motions to dismiss and Joint Motion for Reconsideration filed
by the respondents.
The relevant facts are undisputed.
Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim to be
the rightful owners of Lot No. 6195 (Civil Case No. 5188), a one-hectare portion
of Lot No. 6196-A (Civil Case No. 5433), and a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos.
6196-B and 7529-A (Civil Case No. 5434), all situated in Cogon, Dipolog City,
under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A. No. 141), otherwise
known as the Public Land Act. Respondent siblings Gregorio Lumocso (Civil Case
No. 5188), Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan (Civil Case No. 5433) and Jacinto
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

Lumocso (Civil Case No. 5434), are the patent holders and registered owners of
the subject lots.
The records show that on August 6, 1997, Valeriano Sr. 7(7) and his
children, petitioners Valeriano Jr., Ramon, Eduardo, Alberto, Bernardo, Teresita,
Reynaldo, and Gloria, all surnamed Concha, filed a complaint for Reconveyance
and/or Annulment of Title with Damages against "Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and
Bienvenida Guya." They sought to annul Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and the
corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-22556 issued in the name
of "Gregorio Lumocso" covering Lot No. 6195. The case was raffled to the RTC
of Dipolog City, Branch 9, and docketed as Civil Case No. 5188. In their Amended
Complaint, petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered:
1.
Declaring Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and Original Certificate of
Title No. 22556 issued to defendants as null and void ab initio;
2.
Declaring Lot No. 6195 or 1.19122-hectare as private property
of the plaintiffs under Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141 otherwise known as the
Public Land Act as amended by RA 1942;
HcISTE

3.
Ordering the defendant Lomocsos to reconvey the properties
(sic) in question Lot No. 6195 or the 1.19122 hectares in favor of the
plaintiffs within 30 days from the finality of the decision in this case and if
they refuse, ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court to execute
the deed of reconveyance with like force and effect as if executed by the
defendant[s] themselves;
4.
Ordering defendant Lomocsos to pay P60,000.00 for the 21
forest trees illegally cut; P50,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for
Attorney's fees; P20,000.00 for litigation expenses; and to pay the cost of the
proceedings;
5.
Declaring the confiscated three (sic) flitches kept in the area of
the plaintiffs at Dampalan San Jose, Dipolog with a total volume of 2000
board feet a[s] property of the plaintiff [they] being cut, collected and taken
from the land possessed, preserved, and owned by the plaintiffs;
6.
The plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies
which this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
8(8)

On September 3, 1999, two separate complaints for Reconveyance with

Damages were filed by petitioners, 9(9) this time against "Cristita Lomocso Vda.
de Daan" for a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A and "Spouses Jacinto
Lomocso and Balbina T. Lomocso" for a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

and 7529-A. The two complaints were also raffled to Branch 9 of the RTC of
Dipolog City and docketed as Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434, respectively. In
Civil Case No. 5433, petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered:
1.
Declaring [a] portion of Lot 6196-A titled under OCT (P23527)
4888 equivalent to one hectare located at the western portion of Lot 4888 as
private property of the plaintiffs under Sec. 48(B) CA 141 otherwise known
as Public Land OCT (sic) as amended by RA No. 1942;
2.
Ordering the defendant to reconvey the equivalent of one (1)
hectare forested portion of her property in question in favor of the plaintiffs
within 30 days from the finality of the decision in this case segregating one
hectare from OCT (P23527) 4888, located at its Western portion and if she
refuse (sic), ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court to execute
the deed of reconveyance with like force and effect, as if executed by the
defenda[n]t herself;
3.
Ordering defendant to pay P30,000.00 for the 22 forest trees
illegally cut; P20,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for Attorney's fees;
P20,000.00 for litigation expenses; and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
10(10)

In Civil Case No. 5434, petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered:

1.
Declaring [a] portion of Lot 7529-A under OCT (P-23207)
12870 and Lot 6196-B OCT (P-20845) 4889 equivalent to one hectare
located as (sic) the western portion of said lots as private property of the
plaintiffs under Sec. 48(b) of [C.A. No.] 141 otherwise know[n] as the
[P]ublic [L]and [A]ct as amended by RA 1942;
2.
Ordering the defendants to reconvey the equivalent of one (1)
hectare forested portion of their properties in question in favor of the
plaintiffs within 30 days from the finality of the decision in this case
segregating one hectare from OCT (P-23207) 12870 and OCT
(T-20845)-4889 all of defendants, located at its Western portion and if they
refuse, ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court to execute the
deed of reconveyance with like force and effect as if executed by the
defendants themselves[;]
3.
Ordering defendants to pay P20,000.00 for the six (6) forest
trees illegally cut; P20,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 for Attorney's
fees; P20,000.00 for litigation expenses; and to pay the cost of the
proceedings. 11(11)

The three complaints 12(12) commonly alleged: a) that on May 21, 1958,
petitioners' parents (spouses Valeriano Sr. and Dorotea Concha) acquired by
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

homestead a 24-hectare parcel of land situated in Cogon, Dipolog City; b) that

since 1931, spouses Concha "painstakingly preserved" the forest in the 24-hectare
land, including the excess four (4) hectares "untitled forest land" located at its
eastern portion; c) that they possessed this excess 4 hectares of land (which
consisted of Lot No. 6195, one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A and one-hectare
portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A) "continuously, publicly, notoriously,
adversely, peacefully, in good faith and in concept of the (sic) owner since 1931;"
d) that they continued possession and occupation of the 4-hectare land after the
death of Dorotea Concha on December 23, 1992 and Valeriano Sr. on May 12,
1999; e) that the Concha spouses "have preserved the forest trees standing in [the
subject lots] to the exclusion of the defendants (respondents) or other persons from
1931" up to November 12, 1996 (for Civil Case No. 5188) or January 1997 (for
Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434) when respondents, "by force, intimidation, [and]
stealth forcibly entered the premises, illegally cut, collected, [and] disposed" of 21
trees (for Civil Case No. 5188), 22 trees (for Civil Case No. 5433) or 6 trees (for
Civil Case No. 5434); f) that "the land is private land or that even assuming it was
part of the public domain, plaintiffs had already acquired imperfect title thereto"
under Sec. 48 (b) of C.A. No. 141, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1942;
g) that respondents allegedly cut into flitches the trees felled in Lot No. 6195 (Civil
Case No. 5188) while the logs taken from the subject lots in Civil Case Nos. 5433
and 5434 were sold to a timber dealer in Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte; h) that
respondents "surreptitiously" filed free patent applications over the lots despite
their full knowledge that petitioners owned the lots; i) that the geodetic engineers
who conducted the original survey over the lots never informed them of the survey
to give them an opportunity to oppose respondents' applications; j) that
respondents' free patents and the corresponding OCTs were issued "on account of
fraud, deceit, bad faith and misrepresentation"; and k) that the lots in question have
not been transferred to an innocent purchaser.
CacEIS

On separate occasions, respondents moved for the dismissal of the

respective cases against them on the same grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the
RTC over the subject matters of the complaints; (b) failure to state causes of action
for reconveyance; (c) prescription; and (d) waiver, abandonment, laches and
estoppel. 13(13) On the issue of jurisdiction, respondents contended that the RTC
has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to Section 19 (2) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, as in each case, the
assessed values of the subject lots are less than P20,000.00.
Petitioners opposed, 14(14) contending that the instant cases involve actions
the subject matters of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation which, under
Section 19 (1) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, fall within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTCs. They also contended that they have two main
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

causes of action: for reconveyance and for recovery of the value of the trees felled
by respondents. Hence, the totality of the claims must be considered which, if
computed, allegedly falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
The trial court denied the respective motions to dismiss of respondents.
15(15) The respondents filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration, 16(16) to no avail.
17(17)

Dissatisfied, respondents jointly filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition

and Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Restraining Order Ex Parte
18(18) with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 59499. In its Decision, 19(19) the
CA reversed the resolutions and order of the trial court. It held that even assuming
that the complaints state a cause of action, the same have been barred by the statute
of limitations. The CA ruled that an action for reconveyance based on fraud
prescribes in ten (10) years, hence, the instant complaints must be dismissed as
they involve titles issued for at least twenty-two (22) years prior to the filing of the
complaints. The CA found it unnecessary to resolve the other issues.
Hence, this appeal in which petitioners raise the following issues, viz:
FIRST WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS
(FORMER FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF
THE COURT A QUO DENYING THE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL,
CONSIDERING THE DISMISSAL OF A PARTY COMPLAINT IS
PREMATURE AND TRIAL ON THE MERITS SHOULD BE
CONDUCTED TO THRESH OUT EVIDENTIARY MATTERS.
SECOND WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
PETITIONERS'
COMPLAINTS
ON
[THE]
GROUND
OF
PRESCRIPTION.
THIRD WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN CONCLUDING
THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO
SHOW THAT PETITIONERS OWN THE SUBJECT FOREST PORTION
OF THE PROPERTIES ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE TITLES
OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
FOURTH WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION OF HEREIN
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FILED WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT
OF APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION) SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED OUTRIGHTLY FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' THEREIN
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF
SECTION 1 RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO SUBMIT
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF THE ASSAILED ORDERS OF THE

TRIAL COURT WHICH RENDERED THEIR PETITION (CA G.R. 59499)
DEFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE CITING THE CASE OF
CATUIRA VS. COURT OF APPEALS (172 SCRA 136). 20(20)

In their memorandum, 21(21) respondents reiterated their arguments in the

courts below that: a) the complaints of the petitioners in the trial court do not state
causes of action for reconveyance; b) assuming the complaints state causes of
action for reconveyance, the same have already been barred by prescription; c) the
RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant cases; d) the
claims for reconveyance in the complaints are barred by waiver, abandonment, or
otherwise extinguished by laches and estoppel; and e) there is no special reason
warranting a review by this Court.
Since the issue of jurisdiction is determinative of the resolution of the
instant case yet the CA skirted the question, we resolved to require the parties to
submit their respective Supplemental Memoranda on the issue of jurisdiction.
22(22)

In their Supplemental Memorandum, 23(23) petitioners contend that the

nature of their complaints, as denominated therein and as borne by their
allegations, are suits for reconveyance, or annulment or cancellation of OCTs and
damages. The cases allegedly involve more than just the issue of title and
possession since the nullity of the OCTs issued to respondents and the
reconveyance of the subject properties were also raised as issues. Thus, the RTC
has jurisdiction under Section 19 (1) of B.P. 129, which provides that the RTC has
jurisdiction "[i]n all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation." Petitioners cited: a) Raymundo v. CA 24(24) which set
the criteria for determining whether an action is one not capable of pecuniary
estimation; b) Swan v. CA 25(25) where it was held that an action for annulment
of title is under the jurisdiction of the RTC; c) Santos v. CA 26(26) where it was
similarly held that an action for annulment of title, reversion and damages was
within the jurisdiction of the RTC; and d) Commodities Storage and ICE Plant
Corporation v. CA 27(27) where it was held that "[w]here the action affects title
to the property, it should be filed in the RTC where the property is located."
Petitioners also contend that while it may be argued that the assessed values of the
subject properties are within the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court
(MTC), they have included in their prayers "any interest included therein"
consisting of 49 felled natural grown trees illegally cut by respondents. Combining
the assessed values of the properties as shown by their respective tax declarations
and the estimated value of the trees cut, the total amount prayed by petitioners
exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). Hence, they contend that the RTC
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

has jurisdiction under Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129.

HDTCSI

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases
of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. 28(28) It is
conferred by law and an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the
parties. 29(29) To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case, it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action and
of the relief sought. 30(30)
The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve actions for
reconveyance. 31(31) An action for reconveyance respects the decree of
registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property, which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in other persons' names, to its rightful and
legal owners, or to those who claim to have a better right. 32(32) There is no
special ground for an action for reconveyance. It is enough that the aggrieved party
has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner 33(33) and
that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.
34(34)

The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the instant cases typify an action for
reconveyance. The following are also the common allegations in the three
complaints that are sufficient to constitute causes of action for reconveyance, viz:
(a) That plaintiff Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. together with his spouse
Dorotea Concha have painstakingly preserve[d] the forest standing in the
area [of their 24-hectare homestead] including the four hectares untitled
forest land located at the eastern portion of the forest from 1931 when they
were newly married, the date they acquired this property by occupation or
possession; 35(35)
(b) That spouses Valeriano S. Concha Sr. and Dorotea P. Concha
have preserved the forest trees standing in [these parcels] of land to the
exclusion of the defendants Lomocsos or other persons from 1931 up to
November 12, 1996 [for Civil Case No. 5188] and January 1997 [for Civil
Case Nos. 5433 and 5434] when defendants[,] by force, intimidation, [and]
stealth[,] forcibly entered the premises, illegal[ly] cut, collected, disposed a
total of [twenty-one (21) trees for Civil Case No. 5188, twenty-two (22) trees
for Civil Case No. 5433 and six (6) trees for Civil Case No. 5434] of various
sizes; 36(36)
(c) That this claim is an assertion that the land is private land or
that even assuming it was part of the public domain, plaintiff had already
acquired imperfect title thereto under Sec. 48(b) of [C.A.] No. 141[,]
otherwise known as the Public Land Act[,] as amended by [R.A.] No.
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

[7691]; 37(37)
(d) That [respondents and their predecessors-in-interest knew when
they] surreptitiously filed 38(38) [their respective patent applications and
were issued their respective] free patents and original certificates of title
[that the subject lots belonged to the petitioners]; 39(39)
(e) [That respondents' free patents and the corresponding original
certificates of titles were issued] on account of fraud, deceit, bad faith and
misrepresentation; 40(40) and
(f) The land in question has not been transferred to an innocent
purchaser. 41(41)

These cases may also be considered as actions to remove cloud on one's title
as they are intended to procure the cancellation of an instrument constituting a
claim on petitioners' alleged title which was used to injure or vex them in the
enjoyment of their alleged title. 42(42)
AaEcHC

Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove cloud

on one's title, the applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is
Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, viz:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: . . .
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, 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) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts;
xxx

xxx

xxx

In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in
Cogon, Dipolog City and their assessed values are less than P20,000.00, to wit:
Civil Case No.

Lot No.

5188

6195

5433

6196-A

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Assessed Value
P1,030.00
4,500.00

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

5434

6196-B
7529-A

4,340.00
1,880.00. 43(43)

Hence, the MTC clearly has jurisdiction over the instant cases.
Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary
estimation under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section
19 (1) of B.P. 129 is erroneous.
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance 44(44) of
or for cancellation of title 45(45) to or to quiet title 46(46) over real property are
actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein."
The original text of Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129 as well as its forerunner,
Section 44 (b) of R.A. 296, 47(47) as amended, gave the RTCs (formerly courts of
first instance) exclusive original jurisdiction "[i]n all civil actions which involve
the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (conferred upon the city and municipal courts under
R.A. 296, as amended)." Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect
on jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of
pecuniary estimation, under Section 19 (1) of B.P. 129 or one involving title to
property under Section 19 (2). The distinction between the two classes became
crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 48(48) in 1994 which
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include "all
civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not
exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses and costs." Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction
over cases the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real
property or any interest therein" under Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129 is divided
between the first and second level courts, with the assessed value of the real
property involved as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced to "unclog
the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier
administration of justice." 49(49)
cAaDCE

The cases of Raymundo v. CA 50(50) and Commodities Storage and ICE

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

Plant Corporation v. CA, 51(51) relied upon by the petitioners, are inapplicable to
the cases at bar. Raymundo involved a complaint for mandatory injunction, not
one for reconveyance or annulment of title. The bone of contention was whether
the case was incapable of pecuniary estimation considering petitioner's contention
that the pecuniary claim of the complaint was only attorney's fees of P10,000,
hence, the MTC had jurisdiction. The Court defined the criterion for determining
whether an action is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation and held that the
issue of whether petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and
Declaration of Restriction of the Corporation is one that is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The claim for attorney's fees was merely incidental to the principal
action, hence, said amount was not determinative of the court's jurisdiction. Nor
can Commodities Storage and ICE Plant Corporation provide any comfort to
petitioners for the issue resolved by the Court in said case was venue and not
jurisdiction. The action therein was for damages, accounting and fixing of
redemption period which was filed on October 28, 1994, before the passage of
R.A. No. 7691. In resolving the issue of venue, the Court held that "[w]here the
action affects title to property, it should be instituted in the [RTC] where the
property is situated. The Sta. Maria Ice Plant & Cold Storage is located in Sta.
Maria, Bulacan. The venue in Civil Case No. 94-727076 was therefore improperly
laid."
Worse, the cases of Swan v. CA 52(52) and Santos v. CA 53(53) cited by
the petitioners, contradict their own position that the nature of the instant cases
falls under Section 19 (1) of B.P. 129. The complaints in Swan and Santos were
filed prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 7691. In Swan, the Court held that the
action being one for annulment of title, the RTC had original jurisdiction under
Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129. In Santos, the Court similarly held that the complaint
for cancellation of title, reversion and damages is also one that involves title to and
possession of real property under Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129. Thus, while the Court
held that the RTC had jurisdiction, the Court classified actions for "annulment of
title" and "cancellation of title, reversion and damages" as civil actions that involve
"title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein" under Section 19
(2) of B.P. 129.
Petitioners' contention that the value of the trees cut in the subject properties
constitutes "any interest therein (in the subject properties)" that should be
computed in addition to the respective assessed values of the subject properties is
unavailing. Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, is clear that
the RTC shall exercise jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, 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
Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

10

(P50,000.00)." It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the
subject properties may be included in the term "any interest therein." However, the
law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the
assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed. 54(54) In this case,
there is no dispute that the assessed values of the subject properties as shown by
their tax declarations are less than P20,000.00. Clearly, jurisdiction over the instant
cases belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED that the RTC of Dipolog City, Branch 9, has no jurisdiction in Civil
Case Nos. 5188, 5433 and 5434.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.

15.

Also referred to as "Lomocso" or "Lumucso" in the records.

The Court of Appeals was removed as public respondent pursuant to Section 4,
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and our ruling in Serg's Products, Inc. v. PCI
Leasing and Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 137705, August 22, 2000, 338 SCRA 499,
504.
Promulgated on November 29, 2002; Rollo, pp. 7-14.
Promulgated on April 10, 2003; id. at 16.
Annexes "M," "N" and "O" of the Petition; id. at 281-295.
Annex "R" of the Petition; id. at 305-306.
Died on May 12, 1999.
Rollo, pp. 98-99.
Id. at 119-125, 143-149.
Id. at 124.
Id. at 148-149.
Id. at 93-106 (Civil Case No. 5188), 119-132 (Civil Case No. 5433), 143-158
(Civil Case No. 5434).
Motion for Preliminary Hearing of Affirmative Defenses for the Dismissal of the
Complaint and the Instant Case (Civil Case No. 5188), id. at 169-189; Motion to
Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5434), id. at 191-210; Motion to Dismiss (Civil Case No.
5433), id. at 212-231.
Opposition to Motion for the Dismissal of the Complaint (Civil Case No. 5188),
id. at 233-248; Opposition to Motion [to] Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5433), id. at
249-264; Opposition to Motion [to] Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5434), id. at
265-280.
In its separate Resolutions all dated December 9, 1999; id. at 281-285, 286-290,
291-295.

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

11

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

33.
34.

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.

45.

46.
47.

Id. at 296-301.
Order dated May 10, 2000; id. at 305-306.
Id. at 307-334.
Dated November 29, 2002; id. at 7-14.
Id. at 36-37.
Id. at 568-641.
Id. at 703-710.
Id. at 722-733.
G.R. No. 97805, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 457.
G.R. No. 97319, August 4, 1992, 212 SCRA 114.
G.R. No. 61218, September 23, 1992, 214 SCRA 162.
G.R. No. 125008, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 439.
Allied Domecq Phil., Inc. v. Villon, G.R. No. 156264, September 30, 2004, 439
SCRA 667, 672, citing Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484, 486 (1941).
Republic v. Sangalang, L-58822, April 8, 1988, 159 SCRA 515.
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, et al. v. Padilla, et al., 106 Phil.
591 (1959), citing Perkins v. Roxas, 72 Phil. 514 (1941).
Rollo, pp. 283, 288, 293.
Hi-Tone Marketing Corp. v. Baikal Realty Corp., G.R. No. 149992, August 20,
2004, 437 SCRA 121, 143, citing Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., G.R. No. 38387,
January 29, 1990, 181 SCRA 431, 442.
Ponce, D.R. Florencio, The Philippine Torrens System (1965), p. 213.
Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 138971, June 6,
2001, 358 SCRA 489, 499, citing Lucena v. CA, G.R. No. 77468, August 25,
1999, 313 SCRA 47.
Rollo, pp. 94, 120, 144.
Id. at 95, 121, 145.
Ibid.
Id. at 95-96, 121-122, 145-146.
Id. at 96, 122, 146.
Ibid.
Id. at 97, 123, 147.
See Tolentino, Arturo M., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of
the Philippines Vol. II (1992), pp. 148-149.
Rollo, pp. 105, 132, 157, 158.
Abrin v. Campos, G.R. No. 52740, November 12, 1991, 203 SCRA 420, 421;
Estate of the late Mercedes Jacob v. CA, G.R. No. 120435, December 22, 1997,
283 SCRA 474.
Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 61218, September 23, 1992, 214 SCRA 162, 163; Swan v.
CA, G.R. No. 97319, August 4, 1992, 212 SCRA 114, 121; Heirs of Susana De
Guzman Tuazon v. CA, G.R. No. 125758, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 219.
Mendoza v. Teh, G.R. No. 122646, March 14, 1997, 269 SCRA 764, 768; Heirs of
Susana De Guzman Tuazon v. CA, supra.
Also known as "The Judiciary Act of 1948," as amended, which provides that:
SECTION 44. Original jurisdiction. Courts of First Instance shall have original
jurisdiction: . . .

Copyright 1994-2009

EcATDH

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

12

48.

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.

(b)
In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real
property, or any interest therein, or the legality of any tax, impost or assessment,
except actions of forcible entry into and detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon city and municipal courts; . . . .
An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980," approved on March 25, 1994.
Sponsorship Speech of Senator Biazon, Record of the Senate dated October 6,
1993.
Supra Note 24.
Supra Note 27.
Supra Note 25.
Supra Note 26.
Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 815, 826; See
also Aquino, H.L., Remedial Law, Doctrines Enunciated in Ponencias on
Jurisdiction, Procedure and Evidence Including Useful Outlines (2002), p. 218.

Copyright 1994-2009

cEITCA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

13

Endnotes
1 (Popup - Popup)
1.

Also referred to as "Lomocso" or "Lumucso" in the records.

2 (Popup - Popup)

2.

The Court of Appeals was removed as public respondent pursuant to Section 4,

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and our ruling in Serg's Products, Inc. v. PCI
Leasing and Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 137705, August 22, 2000, 338 SCRA 499,
504.
3 (Popup - Popup)

3.

Promulgated on November 29, 2002; Rollo, pp. 7-14.

4 (Popup - Popup)

4.

Promulgated on April 10, 2003; id. at 16.

5 (Popup - Popup)

5.

Annexes "M," "N" and "O" of the Petition; id. at 281-295.

6 (Popup - Popup)

6.

Annex "R" of the Petition; id. at 305-306.

7 (Popup - Popup)

7.

Died on May 12, 1999.

8 (Popup - Popup)

8.

Rollo, pp. 98-99.

9 (Popup - Popup)

9.

Id. at 119-125, 143-149.

10 (Popup - Popup)

10.

Id. at 124.
11 (Popup - Popup)

11.

Id. at 148-149.

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

14

12 (Popup - Popup)
12.

Id. at 93-106 (Civil Case No. 5188), 119-132 (Civil Case No. 5433), 143-158
(Civil Case No. 5434).
13 (Popup - Popup)

13.

Motion for Preliminary Hearing of Affirmative Defenses for the Dismissal of the
Complaint and the Instant Case (Civil Case No. 5188), id. at 169-189; Motion to
Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5434), id. at 191-210; Motion to Dismiss (Civil Case No.
5433), id. at 212-231.
14 (Popup - Popup)

14.

Opposition to Motion for the Dismissal of the Complaint (Civil Case No. 5188),
id. at 233-248; Opposition to Motion [to] Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5433), id. at
249-264; Opposition to Motion [to] Dismiss (Civil Case No. 5434), id. at
265-280.
15 (Popup - Popup)

15.

In its separate Resolutions all dated December 9, 1999; id. at 281-285, 286-290,
291-295.
16 (Popup - Popup)

16.

Id. at 296-301.
17 (Popup - Popup)

17.

Order dated May 10, 2000; id. at 305-306.

18 (Popup - Popup)

18.

Id. at 307-334.
19 (Popup - Popup)

19.

Dated November 29, 2002; id. at 7-14.

20 (Popup - Popup)

20.

Id. at 36-37.
21 (Popup - Popup)

21.

Id. at 568-641.

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

15

22 (Popup - Popup)
22.

Id. at 703-710.
23 (Popup - Popup)

23.

Id. at 722-733.
24 (Popup - Popup)

24.

G.R. No. 97805, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 457.

25 (Popup - Popup)

25.

G.R. No. 97319, August 4, 1992, 212 SCRA 114.

26 (Popup - Popup)

26.

G.R. No. 61218, September 23, 1992, 214 SCRA 162.

27 (Popup - Popup)

27.

G.R. No. 125008, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 439.

28 (Popup - Popup)

28.

Allied Domecq Phil., Inc. v. Villon, G.R. No. 156264, September 30, 2004, 439
SCRA 667, 672, citing Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484, 486 (1941).
29 (Popup - Popup)

29.

Republic v. Sangalang, L-58822, April 8, 1988, 159 SCRA 515.

30 (Popup - Popup)

30.

Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, et al. v. Padilla, et al., 106 Phil. 591
(1959), citing Perkins v. Roxas, 72 Phil. 514 (1941).
31 (Popup - Popup)

31.

Rollo, pp. 283, 288, 293.

32 (Popup - Popup)

32.

Hi-Tone Marketing Corp. v. Baikal Realty Corp., G.R. No. 149992, August 20,
2004, 437 SCRA 121, 143, citing Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., G.R. No. 38387, January
29, 1990, 181 SCRA 431, 442.

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

16

33 (Popup - Popup)
33.

Ponce, D.R. Florencio, The Philippine Torrens System (1965), p. 213.

34 (Popup - Popup)

34.

Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 138971, June 6,

2001, 358 SCRA 489, 499, citing Lucena v. CA, G.R. No. 77468, August 25,
1999, 313 SCRA 47.
35 (Popup - Popup)

35.

Rollo, pp. 94, 120, 144.

36 (Popup - Popup)

36.

Id. at 95, 121, 145.

37 (Popup - Popup)

37.

Ibid.
38 (Popup - Popup)

38.

Id. at 95-96, 121-122, 145-146.

39 (Popup - Popup)

39.

Id. at 96, 122, 146.

40 (Popup - Popup)

40.

Ibid.
41 (Popup - Popup)

41.

Id. at 97, 123, 147.

42 (Popup - Popup)

42.

See Tolentino, Arturo M., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of
the Philippines Vol. II (1992), pp. 148-149.
43 (Popup - Popup)

43.

Rollo, pp. 105, 132, 157, 158.

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

17

44 (Popup - Popup)
44.

Abrin v. Campos, G.R. No. 52740, November 12, 1991, 203 SCRA 420, 421;
Estate of the late Mercedes Jacob v. CA, G.R. No. 120435, December 22, 1997,
283 SCRA 474.
45 (Popup - Popup)

45.

Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 61218, September 23, 1992, 214 SCRA 162, 163; Swan
v. CA, G.R. No. 97319, August 4, 1992, 212 SCRA 114, 121; Heirs of Susana De
Guzman Tuazon v. CA, G.R. No. 125758, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 219.
46 (Popup - Popup)

46.

Mendoza v. Teh, G.R. No. 122646, March 14, 1997, 269 SCRA 764, 768; Heirs
of Susana De Guzman Tuazon v. CA, supra.
47 (Popup - Popup)

47.

Also known as "The Judiciary Act of 1948," as amended, which provides that:
SECTION 44. Original jurisdiction. Courts of First Instance shall have original
jurisdiction: . . .
(b)
In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real
property, or any interest therein, or the legality of any tax, impost or assessment,
except actions of forcible entry into and detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction of which is conferred by this Act upon city and municipal courts; . . . .

48 (Popup - Popup)
48.

An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980," approved on March 25, 1994.
49 (Popup - Popup)

49.

Sponsorship Speech of Senator Biazon, Record of the Senate dated October 6,

1993.
50 (Popup - Popup)

50.

Supra Note 24.

51 (Popup - Popup)

51.

Supra Note 27.

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

18

52 (Popup - Popup)
52.

Supra Note 25.

53 (Popup - Popup)

53.

Supra Note 26.

54 (Popup - Popup)

54.

Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 815, 826; See
also Aquino, H.L., Remedial Law, Doctrines Enunciated in Ponencias on
Jurisdiction, Procedure and Evidence Including Useful Outlines (2002), p. 218.

Copyright 1994-2009

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Philippine Jurisprudence 1995-2008

19