1/17/2021 G.R. No.

202448

Today is Sunday, January 17, 2021

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

FIRST DIVISION

December 13, 2017

G.R. No. 202448

JOSEPH O. REGALADO, Petitioner,

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review· on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the May 28, 2012 Decision3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02994, which affirmed the January 20, 2009 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court
(RIC) of Bacolod City, Branch 42 in Civil Case No. 98-10187 for."Recovery of Possession and Damages with
Injunction."

Factual Antecedents

Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, Jose, Jessica, and Jaime Antonio (Jaime), all surnamed de la Pena
(respondents), are the registered owners of two parcels of land with a total area of 44 hectares located in Murcia,
Negros Occidental. These properties are referred to as Lot Nos. 138-D and 138-S, and are respectively covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title No. T-103187 and T-1031895 (subject properties).

Purportedly, in 1994, without the knowledge and consent of respondents, Joseph Regalado (petitioner) entered,
took possession of, and planted sugar cane on the subject properties without paying rent to respondents. In the crop
year 1995-1996, respondents discovered such illegal entry, which prompted them to verbally demand from petitioner
to vacate the properties but to no avail.6

Later, the parties appeared before the Barangay Office of Cansilayan, Murcia, Negros Occidental but failed to arrive
at any amicable settlement. On September 29, 1997, the Lupon Tagapamayapa of said Barangay issued a
Certificate to File Action;7 and, on March 9, 1998, respondents filed a Complaint8 for recovery of possession and
damages with injunction against petitioner.

In his Answer,9 petitioner countered that in 1994, Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, and Jessica executed their
separate Waivers of Undivided Share of Lands renouncing their rights and interests over the subject properties in
favor of Jaime. In turn, Jaime subsequently waived his rights and interests on the same properties to petitioner.10
Petitioner claimed that respondents did not attempt to enter the properties as they already intentionally relinquished
their interests thereon.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss11 on the ground, among others, that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case. Petitioner posited that based on the allegations in the Complaint, the action involved
recovery of physical possession of the properties in dispute; said Complaint was also filed within one year from the
date the parties had a confrontation before the Barangay; and thus, the case was one for Ejectment and must be
filed with the proper Municipal Trial Court (MTC).

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_202448_2017.html 1/7
1/17/2021 G.R. No. 202448
12
In their Reply, respondents alleged that the waiver of rights in favor of Jaime was conditioned on the payment of
their ₱6.7 million loan with the Republic Planters Bank (RPB) and Philippine National Bank (PNB); and, in case the
subject properties would be sold, its proceeds shall be equally distributed to respondents. They further stated that
such waiver bestowed rights over the properties solely upon Jaime. They added that the subsequent waiver
executed by Jaime to petitioner should have been with conformity of the banks where the properties were
mortgaged; and conditioned on the payment of the ₱6.7 million loan. They pointed out that neither Jaime nor
petitioner paid any amount to RPB or PNB; and as a result, the waivers of rights in favor of Jaime, and later to
petitioner, were void.

Subsequently, in their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,13 respondents contended that the RTC had jurisdiction over
the case because their demand for petitioner to vacate the properties was made during the crop year 1995- 1996,
which was earlier than the refe1Tal of the matter to Barangay Cansilayan.

On July 31, 2000, the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. It held that it had jurisdiction over the case because the
area of the subject properties was 44 hectares, more or less, and "it is safe to presume that the value of the same is
more than ₱20,000.00."14

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On January 20, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering petitioner to turn over the subject properties to
respondents and to pay them ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees.

The RTC ratiocinated that the waiver of rights executed by Jaime to petitioner was coupled with a consideration.
However, petitioner failed to prove that he paid a consideration for such a waiver; as such, petitioner was not entitled
to possess the subject properties.

Both parties appealed to the CA.

On one hand, petitioner reiterated that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. He also maintained that
respondents already waived their shares and rights over the properties to Jaime, who, in turn, renounced his rights
to petitioner.

On the other hand, respondents assailed the RTC Decision in so far as it failed to award them damages as a result
of petitioner's purported illegal entry and possession of the subject properties.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On May 28, 2012, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision

The CA dismissed respondents' appeal because they did not establish entitlement to damages. It likewise dismissed
the appeal interposed by petitioner for failing to establish that he gave any consideration in relation to Jaime's
waiver of rights in his (petitioner) favor.

In addition, the CA ruled that the RTC had jurisdiction over this case considering that the parties stipulated on the
jurisdiction of the RTC but also because the assessed value of the subject properties is presumed to have exceeded
₱20,000.00.

Issues

Hence, petitioner filed this Petition raising the issues as follows:

I. DID THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE CASE?

II. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN RULING THAT PETITIONER SHOULD RETURN
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES SUBJECT OF THIS CASE TO THE RESPONDENTS?

III. SHOULD THE PETITIONER BE AWARDED DAMAGES?15

Petitioner's Arguments

Petitioner insists that respondents filed their Complaint for recovery of physical possession of the subject properties
on March 9, 1998 or within one year from the date the parties had their confrontation before the Barangay of
Cansilayan (September 29, 1997). As such, he maintains that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case.

Petitioner also posits that even granting that this action is considered a plenary action to recover right of possession,
the RTC still had no jurisdiction because the tax declarations of the properties were not submitted, and
consequently, it cannot be determined whether it is the MTC or RTC which has jurisdiction over the case.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_202448_2017.html 2/7
1/17/2021 G.R. No. 202448

Moreover, petitioner argues that Jaime's waiver in his (petitioner's) favor was coupled with the following
considerations: 1) ₱400,000.00 cash; 2) a car worth ₱350,000.00; and 3) a convenience store worth ₱1,500,000.00.
He adds that the delivery of the properties to him confirms that he (petitioner) gave said considerations to Jaime.

Later, in his Manifestation and Motion,16 petitioner points out that although the body of the assailed CA Decision
made reference to the January 20, 2009 RTC Decision, its dispositive portion pertained to a different case, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the August 29, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 in Civil
Case No. CEB- 30866 is AFFIRMED.

Costs against both appellants.

SO ORDERED.17 (Underlining ours)

Consequently, petitioner prays that the dispositive portion of the CA Decision be rectified to refer to the actual case
subject of the appeal.

Respondents' Arguments

On the other hand, respondents contend that the CA did not commit any reversible error in rendering the assailed
Decision. They insist that petitioner's contentions are unsubstantial to merit consideration.

Our Ruling

The Court grants the Petition.

In our jurisdiction, there are three kinds of action for recovery of possession of real property: 1)
ejectment (either for un]awful detainer or forcible entry) in case the dispossession has lasted for not
more than a year; 2) accion publiciona or a plenary action for recovery of real right of possession when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year; and, 3) accion reinvindicatoria or an action for
recovery of ownership.18

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691),19 the proper Metropolitan Trial Court (Me TC), MTC, or
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) has exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases. Moreover,
jurisdiction of the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC shall include civil actions involving title to or possession of
real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property does not exceed
₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila),20 On the other hand, the RTC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein in
case the assessed value of the property exceeds ₱20,000.00(or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila).21

Jurisdiction is thus determined not only by the type of action filed but also by the assessed value of the
property. It follows that in accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria, the assessed value of the real
property is a jurisdictional element to determine the court that can take cognizance of the action.22

In this case, petitioner consistently insists that a) the Complaint is one for ejectment; or b) if the same is
deemed an accion publiciana, the RTC still lacks jurisdiction as the assessed value of the subject
properties was not alleged in the Complaint.

As such, to ascertain the proper court that has jurisdiction, reference must be made to the averments in
the complaint, and the law in force at the commencement of the action. This is because only the facts
alleged in the complaint can be the basis for determining the nature of the action, and the court that
can take cognizance of the case.23

Here, the pertinent portions of the Complaint read:

2. That plaintiffs [herein respondents] are the owners of two (2) parcels of land known as Lot. No. 138-
D with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-103187 and Lot No. 138-S with Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-103189, with a total land area of 44 hectares, all of Murcia Cadastre xxx;

3. That sometime in 1994, without the knowledge and consent of herein plaintiffs, the defendant [herein
petitioner] entered into and took possession of the aforementioned parcels of land and planted sugar
cane without paying any rental to herein plaintiffs;

4. That plaintiffs discovered the illegal entry and occupation by the defendant of the aforementioned
property and demand to vacate the property was made orally to the defendant sometime in 1995-96
crop year but defendant refused and still refuses to vacate the premises;

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_202448_2017.html 3/7
1/17/2021 G.R. No. 202448

5. A confrontation before the Brgy. Kapitan of Brgy[.] Cansilayan, Murcia, Negros Occidental, and
before the Pangkat Tagapag[ka]sundo between herein parties where plaintiffs again demanded orally
for the defendant to vacate the premises but defendant refused to vacate the premises and no
amicable settlement was reached during the confrontation of the parties, thus a certificate to file action
has been issued x x x;

6. That plaintiffs were barred by the defendant from entering the prope1iy of the plaintiffs for the latter
to take possession of the same and plant sugar cane thereby causing damages to the plaintiffs;

7. That because of the refusal of the defendant to allow the plaintiffs to take possession and control of
their own property, plaintiffs were constrained to seek the aid of counsel and consequently thereto this
complaint.24

Under Section 1,25 Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, there are special jurisdictional facts that must be set forth in the
complaint to make a case for ejectment, which, as mentioned, may either be for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.

In particular, a complaint for forcible entry must allege the plaintiff's prior physical possession of the property; the
fact that plaintiff was deprived of its possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and the action must
be filed within one year from the time the owner or the legal possessor learned of their dispossession.26 On the other
hand, a complaint for unlawful detainer must state that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the real
property after the expiration or termination of his or her right to possess it; and the complaint is filed within a year
from the time such possession became unlawful.27

In the instant case, respondents only averred in the Complaint that they are registered owners of the subject
properties, and petitioner unlawfully deprived them of its possession. They did not assert therein that they were
dispossessed of the subject properties under the circumstances necessary to make a case of either forcible entry or
unlawful detainer. Hence, in the absence of the required jurisdictional facts, the instant action is not one for
ejectment.28

Nonetheless, the Court agrees with petitioner that while this case is an accion publiciana, there was no clear
showing that the RTC has jurisdiction over it. 1âwphi1

Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by law. It cannot be presumed or implied, and must distinctly
appear from the law. It cannot also be vested upon a court by the agreement of the parties; or by the court's
erroneous belief that it had jurisdiction over a case.29

To emphasize, when respondents filed the Complaint in 1998, RA 7691 was already in force as it was approved on
March 25, 1994 and took effect on April 15, 1994.30 As such, it is necessary that the assessed value of the subject
properties, or its adjacent lots (if the properties are not declared for taxation purposes)31 be alleged to ascertain
which court has jurisdiction over the case.32

As argued by petitioner, the Complaint failed to specify the assessed value of the subject properties. Thus, it is
unclear if the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction, or the MTC has jurisdiction, over respondents' action.

Also worth noting is the fact that the RTC took cognizance of the complaint only on the presumption that the
assessed value of the proper exceeds ₱20,000.00. Aside from affirming such presumption, the CA, in turn, declared
that the RTC had jurisdiction because the parties stipulated on it. However, as discussed, jurisdiction cam1ot be
presumed. It cannot be conferred by the agreement of the parties, or on the erroneous belief of the court that it had
jurisdiction over a case.

Indeed, in the absence of any allegation in the Complaint of the assessed value of the subject properties, it cannot
be determined which court has exclusive original jurisdiction over respondents' Complaint. Courts cannot simply
take judicial notice of the assessed value, or even market value of the land.33 Resultantly, for lack of jurisdiction, all
proceedings before the RTC, including its decision, are void,34 which makes it unnecessary to discuss the other
issues raised by petitioner.

As a final note, while the modification of the clerical error in the dispositive portion of the CA Decision is rendered
irrelevant by the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the Com1, nonetheless, reminds the CA and all
other courts to be more circumspect in rendering their decision, including ensuring the correctness of the information
in their issuances. After all, courts are duty-bound to render accurate decisions, or that which clearly and distinctly
express the facts and the law on which the same is based.35

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The May 28, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
02994 is REVERSEDand SETASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint in Civil Case No. 98-10187 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_202448_2017.html 4/7
1/17/2021 G.R. No. 202448

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA

NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Footnotes
1
Dela Peña in some parts of the records.
2
Suzette P Spicer in some parts of the records
3
CA rollo. pp. 79-96%; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and concurred in by Executive
Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
4
Records, pp. 279-288; penned by Judge Fernando R. Elumba
5
Id at 173-180.
6
ld. at 1-2.
7
ld. at 10.
8
Id. at 1-5.
9
Id. at 21-30.
10
Id. at 31-42.
11
Id. at 46-54.
12
Id. at 60-62.
13
Id. at 66-73.
14
Id. at 110-111.
15
Rollo, p. 8.
16
ld. at 203-204.
17
CA rollo, p. 96.
18
Encarnacion v. Amigo, 533 Phil. 466, 472 (2006).
19
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 [BP 129] (Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980), March 25, 1994.
20
Section 3. Section 33 of [BP 129] is hereby amended lo read as follows:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_202448_2017.html 5/7
1/17/2021 G.R. No. 202448

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

xxxx

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer x x x (3)
Exclusive original jurisdiction in 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 Fitly thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's foes, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in
cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined
by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
21
Section I. Section l 9 of [BP 129] is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. -- Regional Trial Com15 shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction.

xxxx

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of: real properly, 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 action for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropoiitm1 Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
22
Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, 616 Phil. 519, 517 (2009).
23
Id. at 523-524.
24
Records, pp. 1-2.
25
Section I. Who May Institute Proceedings, and When.- Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract,
express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,
bring an action in t11c proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or
depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession,
together with damages and costs. (1a)
26
Nunez v. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc., 632 Phil. 143, 153 (2010).
27
Barbosa v. Hernandez, 554 Phil. 1, 6 (2007).
28
Id. at 7.
29
Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834-, November 9, 2016.
30
Id.
31
Cabling v. Dangcalan, G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016.
32
Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, supra note 22 at 527-528.
33
Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, 557 Phil. 650, 661 (2007).
34
Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, supra note 22 at 528.
35
CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 14.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_202448_2017.html 6/7
1/17/2021 G.R. No. 202448

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/dec2017/gr_202448_2017.html 7/7