Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Case 5

    Uploaded by

    kizh5myt
    1) Payoyo contracted with Villena for the delivery and installation of kitchen cabinets and home appliances, paying 50% down for each. Villena failed to deliver despite demand. 2) Payoyo filed a complaint against Villena seeking recovery of P184,821.50. Villena argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the amount was below the jurisdictional limit. 3) However, the RTC has jurisdiction as Payoyo's complaint primarily sought rescission of the contracts due to breach, with monetary recovery incidental. Actions for rescission are not capable of pecuniary estimation and within RTC jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 5

    Uploaded by

    kizh5myt
    47 views2 pages
    1) Payoyo contracted with Villena for the delivery and installation of kitchen cabinets and home appliances, paying 50% down for each. Villena failed to deliver despite demand. 2) Payoyo filed a complaint against Villena seeking recovery of P184,821.50. Villena argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the amount was below the jurisdictional limit. 3) However, the RTC has jurisdiction as Payoyo's complaint primarily sought rescission of the contracts due to breach, with monetary recovery incidental. Actions for rescission are not capable of pecuniary estimation and within RTC jurisdiction.

    Original Title

    CASE 5.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Payoyo contracted with Villena for the delivery and installation of kitchen cabinets and home appliances, paying 50% down for each. Villena failed to deliver despite demand. 2) Payoyo filed a complaint against Villena seeking recovery of P184,821.50. Villena argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the amount was below the jurisdictional limit. 3) However, the RTC has jurisdiction as Payoyo's complaint primarily sought rescission of the contracts due to breach, with monetary recovery incidental. Actions for rescission are not capable of pecuniary estimation and within RTC jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    Case 5

    Uploaded by

    kizh5myt
    1) Payoyo contracted with Villena for the delivery and installation of kitchen cabinets and home appliances, paying 50% down for each. Villena failed to deliver despite demand. 2) Payoyo filed a complaint against Villena seeking recovery of P184,821.50. Villena argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the amount was below the jurisdictional limit. 3) However, the RTC has jurisdiction as Payoyo's complaint primarily sought rescission of the contracts due to breach, with monetary recovery incidental. Actions for rescission are not capable of pecuniary estimation and within RTC jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PATRICIO A.

    VILLENA

    vs

    PATRICIO S. PAYOYO

    G.R. No. 163021, April 27, 2007

    QUISUMBING, J.:

    FACTS:

    Payoyo and Novaline, Inc., contracted for the delivery and


    installation of kitchen cabinets in Payoyo's residence. The cabinets
    were to be delivered within 90 days after down payment of 50% of the
    purchase price which Payoyo paid. Another contract was entered into
    for the delivery of home appliances to which 50% down payment was
    also paid. Villena failed to install the kitchen cabinets and deliver the
    appliances despite demand and Payoyo filed a complaint for recovery
    of a sum of money and damages against Villena.

    Villena contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the


    complaint since it is mainly for recovery of a sum of money in the
    amount of P184, 821.50 which is below the jurisdictional amount set
    for RTCs. Payoyo however contends that the RTC has jurisdiction
    over the complaint as the allegations therein show that it is actually a
    case for rescission of the contracts. The recovery of a sum of money
    is merely a necessary consequence of the cancellation of the
    contracts.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

    RULING:

    Yes. In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject


    is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action
    or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the
    recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
    pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the court depends on the
    amount of the claim. But, where the primary issue is something other
    than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is
    purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought,
    such are actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary
    estimation, hence cognizable by the RTCs.
    Verily, what determines the nature of the action and which court
    has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the
    character of the relief sought.

    The complaint, albeit entitled as one for collection of a sum of


    money with damages, is one incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus,
    one within the RTC's jurisdiction. The allegations therein show that it
    is actually for breach of contract. A case for breach of contract is a
    cause of action either for specific performance or rescission of
    contracts. An action for rescission of contract, as a counterpart of an
    action for specific performance, is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
    and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The averments
    in the complaint show that Payoyo sought the cancellation of the
    contracts and refund of the downpayments since Villena failed to
    comply with the obligation to deliver the appliances and install the
    kitchen cabinets subject of the contracts. While the respondent
    prayed for the refund, this is just incidental to the main action, which
    is the rescission or cancellation of the contracts.

    You might also like