THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 234103. January 8, 2018.]

HEIRS OF SPOUSES ENRIQUE AND JUANITA TUMANG, ET AL. ,

petitioners, vs. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION AND POWER
SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ,
respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
January 8, 2018 , which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234103 (Heirs of Spouses Enrique and Juanita Tumang, et al.
vs. National Power Corporation and Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation) . — For the consideration of the Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari led under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the
Decision dated May 29, 2017 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 in La Trinidad,
Benguet in Civil Case No. 04-CV-2072 entitled Heirs of Spouses Enrique & Juanita
Tumang, et al. v. National Power Corporation & Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation. The trial court dismissed the case led by petitioners for
lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners went directly to this Court it raising only questions of
law.

The Facts

The facts are undisputed. The spouses Enrique and Juanita Tumang, the parents
and predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners, were the owners of four (4) parcels
of land located in Binga, Itogon denominated as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. During their lifetime,
the spouses Tumang executed two (2) contracts with defendant National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR), to wit:
1. Deed of Absolute Sale over Portions of Lot 2, with Right-of-Way Grants of
Portions of Lots 1, 2 and 4 and Waiver of Rights dated March 15, 1966;
and
2. Agreement dated August 27, 1966 reiterating the sale of grant of right-of-
way easements dated August 27, 1966.
Such agreements were entered into by NAPOCOR in support of its development
of the Binga Hydroelectric Power Plant. Notably, one of the provisions in the Agreement
was:
a) Renounce its right to expropriate the hilltop area on Lot 2, where
improvements will be introduced by the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART;
Later on, petitioners contended that NAPOCOR encroached upon lands covered
by Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 that were not included in the Deed of Absolute Sale and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Agreement. These encroached portions were used by NAPOCOR for its Binga Guest
House, eight (8) transmission towers, housing, mini golf course, additional reservoir
and watersheds, among others. Petitioners allege that the total area encroached upon
by NAPOCOR was 827,171 square meters (sqm).
Thus, petitioners led a Complaint dated December 13, 2004 2 for Recovery of
Possession, Forfeiture of Improvements, Payment of Rentals, Interest and Damages
with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.
In their Answer, respondents deny that they encroached on any property not
covered by the Deed of Sale and the Agreement. Further, they point out that the
structures identi ed by petitioners were constructed in the 1960s and that it was only
after 35 years that petitioners now claim compensation.
During trial, petitioners presented as its sole witness Geodetic Engineer
Benjamin Ventura, Chief of the Aggregate Survey Section of the Land Management
Service DENR-CAR Cordillera Region, Baguio City, who led a team that conducted a
survey of NAPOCOR landholdings in Binga and Ambuclao Hydroelectric Plants. The
survey was for the purpose of titling unregistered lands of NAPOCOR in line with the
privatization of its disposable assets pursuant to the EPIRA law.
Engr. Ventura's team issued a Report with the nding that the NAPOCOR
reservoir encroached upon an approximate area of 88,870 square meters of
petitioners' Lot 2 with the caveat that further surveys must be conducted to determine
the exact amount of encroachment owing to the differing surveys employed by
NAPOCOR and his team.
Afterwards, respondents led a Demurrer to Evidence which was denied by the
trial court. Such denial was appealed by respondents to the Court of Appeals and
subsequently to the Supreme Court, but was a rmed both times. Thus, the case was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Respondents waived their right to present evidence. The parties were directed by
the court to submit their memoranda. Then, the trial court issued the assailed Decision
dated May 29, 2017, thirteen (13) years after the ling of the Complaint, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Complaint is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
Defendants' counterclaims are also dismissed for lack of evidence and merit.
No cost.
So Ordered.
In dismissing the Complaint, the trial court explained that:
Clearly, therefore, the instant suit is a real action as it involves the
recovery of possession of certain real properties. x x x
Here is the problem. The assessed value of the realties in dispute has not
been alleged in, and no tax declaration has been attached to, the Complaint. In
Quinagoran v. CA, the Highest Court said:
Nowhere in the said complaint was the assessed value of
the subject property ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing
on the fact of the complaint that the RTC has exclusive
jurisdiction over the action of the respondents. Indeed, absent any
allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it
cannot be determined whether the RTC or MTC has original and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The Courts
cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the
land.
xxx xxx xxx
Without the amount being claimed as compensation speci ed in the
body of the Complaint as well as in its prayer, there is no way by which the
Court could determine whether the "demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)"
so as to enable it to say that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
suit. 3
Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the Decision but was denied in an
Order dated September 5, 2017. 4
From such rulings of the RTC, petitioners led the instant petition directly with
this Court raising purely questions of law.

Issue

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

In the instant petition, petitioners argue that the Complaint is one for Inverse
Expropriation which is incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, jurisdiction would fall
properly with the Regional Trial Court.
Notably, paragraph 1, Section 19 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7691 which amended
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 , provides:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
In support of their contention that the action is one for inverse expropriation,
petitioners cite the case of DPWH v. Tecson, 5 where the Court ruled:
When a property is taken by the government for public use, jurisprudence
clearly provides for the remedies available to a landowner. The owner may
recover his property if its return is feasible or, if it is not, the aggrieved owner
may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. For failure of
respondents to question the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period
of time, they are deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the
power of the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power
was exercised. What is left to respondents is the right of compensation. The trial
and appellate courts found that respondents are entitled to compensation. The
only issue left for determination is the propriety of the amount awarded to
respondents.
Such contention is misplaced.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The Court explained how jurisdiction over a subject matter is determined in
Padlan v. Dinglasan, 6 to wit:
However, in order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the
action, an examination of the complaint is essential. Basic as a hornbook
principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law
and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The
nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is
determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some
of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the
allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted therein.
What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the
action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint.
The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the
ones to be consulted . (Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, there is no action for expropriation to speak of. The fact of
the matter is that petitioners seek to enforce their right of possession over the alleged
encroached portion of their properties by virtue of the Deed of Sale and the Agreement
that they executed with NAPOCOR. Precisely, petitioners stated in the Complaint that:
10. Subsequently, in utter bad faith and without the knowledge and
consent of Spouses Tumang and/or their heirs and/or succesors-in-interest,
defendant NPC occupied and used various areas of the aforementioned parcels
of land of Spouses Tumang not covered by the Deed and Agreement
(Annexes "G" and "H" supra) for NPC's Binga Guest House, transmission towers
(8) housing, mini golf course, additional reservoir and watershed, etc.; 7
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the trial court properly ruled that Section 19 (2) of RA 7691 would apply in
this case:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
xxx xxx xxx
(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. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioners' failure to indicate the assessed value of the property is fatal to their
cause. The trial court aptly cites the case of Quinagoran v. CA, 8 where this Court ruled:
Nowhere in said complaint was the assessed value of the subject
property ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the face of the
complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the
respondents. Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 value of the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The courts cannot
take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land.
Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the
defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the parties.
Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action and the subject
matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court
or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would
depend almost entirely on the defendant.
Considering that the respondents failed to allege in their complaint the
assessed value of the subject property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the
motion to dismiss. Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void,
and the CA erred in affirming the RTC.
As such, the trial court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners have no one to blame but themselves for failing to state the assessed value
of the properties involved.
WHEREFORE , the instant petition is hereby DENIED . The assailed Decision
dated May 29, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 in La Trinidad, Benguet is
hereby AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 49-60.

2. Id. at 96-106.
3. Id. at 58-59.
4. Id. at 74-75.

5. G.R. No. 179334, July 1, 2013.

6. G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013.

7. Rollo, p. 99.
8. G.R. No. 155179, August 24, 2007.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com