Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    03 Ruby Shelter V Formaran

    Uploaded by

    Juan Samuel Ismael
    Ruby Shelter obtained a loan secured by land but was unable to repay, so Tan and Obiedo executed deeds of absolute sale for the land. Ruby Shelter sued to annul the deeds, paying minimal docket fees. Tan and Obiedo argued the case involved recovery of real property, requiring higher fees based on land value. The Supreme Court ruled the case was a real action as it affected title to land. As such, Ruby Shelter was required to pay additional docket fees based on the fair market value of the land. The Court affirmed the lower court rulings requiring Ruby Shelter to pay the higher fees.

    Copyright:

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

    03 Ruby Shelter V Formaran

    Uploaded by

    Juan Samuel Ismael
    52 views1 page
    Ruby Shelter obtained a loan secured by land but was unable to repay, so Tan and Obiedo executed deeds of absolute sale for the land. Ruby Shelter sued to annul the deeds, paying minimal docket fees. Tan and Obiedo argued the case involved recovery of real property, requiring higher fees based on land value. The Supreme Court ruled the case was a real action as it affected title to land. As such, Ruby Shelter was required to pay additional docket fees based on the fair market value of the land. The Court affirmed the lower court rulings requiring Ruby Shelter to pay the higher fees.

    Original Title

    03 Ruby Shelter v Formaran

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ruby Shelter obtained a loan secured by land but was unable to repay, so Tan and Obiedo executed deeds of absolute sale for the land. Ruby Shelter sued to annul the deeds, paying minimal docket fees. Tan and Obiedo argued the case involved recovery of real property, requiring higher fees based on land value. The Supreme Court ruled the case was a real action as it affected title to land. As such, Ruby Shelter was required to pay additional docket fees based on the fair market value of the land. The Court affirmed the lower court rulings requiring Ruby Shelter to pay the higher fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    52 views1 page

    03 Ruby Shelter V Formaran

    Uploaded by

    Juan Samuel Ismael
    Ruby Shelter obtained a loan secured by land but was unable to repay, so Tan and Obiedo executed deeds of absolute sale for the land. Ruby Shelter sued to annul the deeds, paying minimal docket fees. Tan and Obiedo argued the case involved recovery of real property, requiring higher fees based on land value. The Supreme Court ruled the case was a real action as it affected title to land. As such, Ruby Shelter was required to pay additional docket fees based on the fair market value of the land. The Court affirmed the lower court rulings requiring Ruby Shelter to pay the higher fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    CIVIL

    PROCEDURE

    CASE NUMBER: 3
    CASE TITLE: RUBY SHELTER V. HON. FORMARAN
    G.R. 175914, 10 FEBRUARY 2009

    TOPIC
    JURISDICTION – Payment of Docket Fees
    FACTS:
    Ruby Shelter obtained a loan from Tan and Obiedo secured by a REM consisting of 5 parcels of
    land in the name of the former. Despite an extension granted by Tan and Obiedo and several
    negotiations, Ruby was not able to pay. Hence, Tan and Obiedo, by virtue of a MOA, executed
    Deeds of Absolute sale in their favor covering the 5 parcels of land. The MOA provided that if Ruby
    fails to pay the loan, 5 deeds of absolute sale would be executed in favor of Tan and Obiedo.
    Ruby Shelter filed complaint for declaration of nullity of the deeds. Believing that their action was
    one which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, they paid docket fees amounting to about 13K.
    It said that it only wanted to annul the deeds so no issue of title or recovery of possession is
    present to classify it as a real action.
    Tan and Obiedo moved to dismiss the complaint and ask for damages (also pursuant to the MOA
    – there was a provision that if Ruby Shelter brought suit against them, it would be liable for P
    10M) contending that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the case involved
    recovery of real property making it a real action which requires payment of docket fees equivalent
    to a percentage of the fair market value of the land (P 700K).
    RTC and CA ruled in favor of Tan and Obiedo ordering Ruby Shelter to pay additional docket fees.
    Hence, this petition.
    ISSUE:
    Whether Ruby Shelter should pay additional docket fees.
    HELD:
    YES. For the court to acquire jurisdiction, docket fees must be paid first. Payment is mandatory
    and jurisdictional.
    To determine whether an action is real, it must affect title to or recovery of possession of real
    property. In this case, Ruby Shelter did not disclose certain facts which would classify the
    complaint it filed as a real action (like the execution of deeds of sale pursuant to a MOA). The
    action was really one for recovery of possession of the parcels of land. Hence, it is a real action.
    The docket fees for cases involving real property depend on the fair market value (or the stated
    value) of the same: the higher the value, the higher the fees due. For those incapable of pecuniary
    estimation, a fixed or flat rate is imposed.
    DISPOSITIVE PORTION
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. The
    Decision, dated 22 November 2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94800, which
    affirmed the Orders dated 24 March 2006 and 29 March 2006 of the RTC, Branch 22, of Naga City,
    in Civil Case No. RTC-2006-0030, ordering petitioner Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty
    Development Corporation to pay additional docket/filing fees, computed based on Section 7 (a),
    Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

    LOYOLA

    You might also like