Trayvilla V Sejas

10/5/21, 3:44 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 782

G.R. No. 204970. February 1, 2016.*

SPOUSES CLAUDIO and CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA,
petitioners, vs. BERNARDO SEJAS and JUVY
PAGLINAWAN, represented by JESSIE PAGLINAWAN,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; In the absence of the

required declaration of the fair market value as stated in the
current tax declaration or zonal valuation of the property, it
cannot be determined whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or
first level court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
petitioners’ action, since the jurisdiction of these courts is
determined on the basis of the value of the property.—Since Civil
Case No. 4633-2K5 is a real action made so by the Amended
Complaint later filed, petitioners should have observed the
requirement under A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC relative to declaring the
fair market value of the property as stated in the current tax
declaration or zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR). Since no such allegation was made in the Amended
Complaint, then the value of the subject property as stated in the
handwritten document sued upon and restated in the Amended
Complaint should be the basis for determining jurisdiction and
the amount of docket fees to be paid. The CA is correct in its
general observation that in the absence of the required
declaration of the fair market value as stated in the current tax
declaration or zonal valuation of the property, it cannot be
determined whether the RTC or
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

579
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 579

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
first level court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over

the petitioners’ action, since the jurisdiction of these courts is
determined on the basis of the value of the property.
Taxation; Docket Fees; Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme Court (SC)
Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 shall be the basis
for the computation of the docket fees to be paid.—The CA failed to
consider that in determining jurisdiction, it could rely on the
declaration made in the Amended Complaint that the property is
valued at P6,000,00. The handwritten document sued upon and
the pleadings indicate that the property was purchased by
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c4f6e12ef549a3ccd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/14
petitioners for the price of P6,000.00. For purposes of filing the

civil case against respondents, this amount should be the stated
value of the property in the absence of a current tax declaration or
zonal valuation of the BIR. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme Court Amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, provides that — a) For filing
an action or a permissive OR COMPULSORY counterclaim,
CROSS-CLAIM, or money claim against an estate not based on
judgment, or for filing a third party, fourth party, etc. complaint,
or a complaint-in-intervention, if the total sum claimed,
INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS, PENALTIES, SURCHARGES,
DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES,
LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases involving
property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in
litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR
CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF
THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF THE
PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY
THE CLAIMANT. x x x (Emphasis supplied) shall be the basis for
the computation of the docket fees to be paid. Since the value of
the subject property as stated in the Amended Complaint is just
P6,000.00, then the RTC did not have jurisdiction over petitioners’
case in the first instance; it should have dismissed Civil Case No.
4633-2K5. But it did not. In continuing to take cognizance of the
case, the trial court clearly committed grave abuse of discretion.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

580
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Cabrido & Associates Law Firm for petitioners.
Percy M. Moron for respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are
the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals (CA): 1)
November 29, 2011 Decision2 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 02315
which granted respondents’ Petition for Certiorari and
nullified the September 3, 20073 and February 21, 20084
Orders of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 9th
Judicial Region, Pagadian City in Civil Case No. 4633-2K5;
and 2) November 19, 2012 Resolution5 denying the
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Factual Antecedents

In 2005, petitioners Claudio and Carmencita Trayvilla
instituted before the RTC Civil Case No. 4633-2K5 against
respondent Bernardo Sejas (Sejas). In their Complaint6 for
specific performance and damages, petitioners claimed
among others that Sejas was the registered owner of a 434-
square-meter parcel of land in Tukuran, Zamboanga del

Sur covered
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 21-34.

2 Id., at pp. 36-47; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-
Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and
Pamela Ann Abella Maxino.
3 CA Rollo, p. 31; penned by Judge Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas.
4 Id., at pp. 37-38.
5 Rollo, pp. 5-6; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and
concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Oscar V.
Badelles.
6 Id., at pp. 48-52.

581
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 581

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8,3377 (TCT T-

8,337); that by virtue of a private handwritten document,8
Sejas sold said parcel of land to them in 1982; that
thereafter, they took possession of the land and constructed
a house thereon; that they resided in said house and
continued to reside therein; that Sejas later reasserted his
ownership over said land and was thus guilty of fraud and
deceit in so doing; and that they caused the annotation of
an adverse claim. They prayed that Sejas be ordered to
execute a final deed of sale over the property and transfer
the same to them, and that they be awarded the sum of
P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P1,500.00 per court
appearance of counsel.
In an Amended Complaint,9 this time for specific
performance, reconveyance, and damages, petitioners
impleaded respondent Juvy Paglinawan (Paglinawan) as
additional defendant, claiming that Sejas subsequently
sold the subject property to her, after which she caused the
cancellation of TCT T-8,337 and the issuance of a new title
— TCT T-46,627 — in her name. Petitioners prayed that
Sejas be ordered to execute a final deed of sale in their
favor and transfer the property to them; that Paglinawan’s
TCT T-46,627 be canceled and the property be reconveyed
to them; and that they be awarded P50,000.00 in moral
damages, in addition to the P30,000.00 attorney’s fees and
P1,500.00 per court appearance of counsel originally
prayed for in the Complaint.
However, the additional docket fees for the moral
damages prayed for in the Amended Complaint were not
paid.10 Likewise, for the additional causes of action, no
docket fees were charged and paid.
_______________
7 Id., at p. 53.
8 Id., at p. 54.
9 Id., at pp. 63-68.
10 Id., at p. 23.

582

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
Respondents moved for dismissal of the case, claiming

lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and
prescription. The RTC denied the motion in a September 3,
2007 Order.11
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration,12
arguing that petitioners’ case was not for specific
performance but was in reality a real action or one
involving title to and possession of real property, in which
case the value of the property should be alleged in the
complaint in order that the proper filing fee may be
computed and paid; that since the value of the land was not
alleged in the Amended Complaint, the proper filing fee
was not paid, and for this reason the case should be
dismissed; and that petitioners’ cause of action is barred by
prescription since the 10-year period to sue upon the
handwritten contract — counted from their purchase of the
land in 1982 — had already lapsed when they filed the case
in 2005. However, in a February 21, 2008 Order,13 the RTC
denied the motion, stating among others that petitioners’
case is not a real action but indeed one for specific
performance and thus one which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Respondents filed an original Petition for Certiorari14
before the CA, which was docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
02315. On November 29, 2011, the CA issued the assailed
Decision, which contained the following pronouncement:

The petition is meritorious.
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and
determine a cause or the right to act in a case. In
addition to being conferred by the Constitution and
the law, the rule is settled that a court’s jurisdiction
over the sub-
_______________
11 CA Rollo, p. 31.

12 Id., at pp. 32-36.
13 Id., at pp. 37-38.
14 Id., at pp. 3-13.

583
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 583

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
ject matter is determined by the relevant

allegations in the complaint, the law in effect when
the action is filed, and the character of the relief

sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled
to all or some of the claims asserted.
Consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the Revised
Rules of Court which provides that the prescribed fees
shall be paid in full “upon the filing of the pleading or
other application which initiates an action or
proceeding,” the well-entrenched rule is to the effect
that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only
upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket
fees.
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by
A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme Court Amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, provides that:
SEC. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.—
(a) For filing an action or a permissive OR
COMPULSORY counterclaim, CROSSCLAIM,
or money claim against an estate not based on
judgment, or for filing a third party, fourth
party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-in-
intervention, if the total sum claimed,
INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS, PENALTIES,
SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER
KIND, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, LITIGATION
EXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases
involving property, the FAIR MARKET value of
the REAL property in litigation STATED IN
THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR
CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS
NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE
OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
LITIGATION X X X AS ALLEGED BY THE
CLAIMANT, is:
[Table of fees omitted.]

584

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
If the action involves both a money claim and relief

pertaining to property, then THE fees will be charged
on both the amounts claimed and value of property
based on the formula prescribed in this paragraph a.
(b) For filing:
1. Actions where the value of the subject matter
cannot be estimated
2. Special civil actions, except judicial foreclosure
of mortgage, EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS,
PARTITION AND QUIETING OF TITLE which will
[sic]
3. All other actions not involving property
[Table of fees omitted.]
The docket fees under Section 7(a), Rule 141, in
cases involving real property depend on the fair
market value of the same: the higher the value of the
real property, the higher the docket fees due. In
contrast, Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 imposes a fixed or

flat rate of docket fees on actions incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
x x x x
As can be gleaned from the records, the Amended
Complaint was styled as one for ‘Specific Performance
and Damages,’ whereby private respondents15 sought
to compel petitioner Sejas to execute the deed of sale
over the subject land in their favor on the premise
that they bought the said land from petitioner Sejas
through a private document. They declared
themselves to be the true and real owners of the
subject land and had in fact taken possession over it
to the exclusion of others including petitioner Sejas.
While it may appear that the suit filed is one for
specific performance, hence an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation, a closer look at the allegations
and reliefs prayed for in the Complaint, however,
shows that

585
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 585

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
private respondents were not merely seeking the

execution of the deed of sale in their favor. They were
also asking the lower court earnestly to cancel TCT
No. T-46,627 which was allegedly issued to petitioner
Paglinawan through fraudulent means and have the
same reconveyed to them as the owners of the subject
land. The ultimate purpose then of private
respondents in filing the complaint before the RTC is
to secure their vaunted ownership and title to the
subject land which they claimed was purchased from
petitioner Sejas. Their cause of action clearly springs
from their right as purchaser of the subject land.
Under these circumstances, the suit before the RTC is
a real action, affecting as it did title to the real
property sought to be reconveyed. A real action is one
in which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real
property; or, as indicated in what is now Section 1,
Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is an action
affecting title to or recovery of possession of real
property.
Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, prior to
its amendment by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, had a specific
paragraph governing the assessment of the docket
fees for real action, to wit:
In a real action, the assessed value of the
property, or if there is none, the estimated value
thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and
shall be the basis in computing the fees.
But it is important to note that, with the
amendments introduced by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC,
which became effective on 16 August 2004, the
paragraph in Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, pertaining specifically to the basis for the
computation of docket fees for real actions was
deleted. Instead, Section 7(1) of Rule 141, as
amended, provides that ‘in cases involving real

property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL
property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT
TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL
VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, WHICH [sic] IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE
IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY IN LITIGATION x x x’ shall be the basis
for the computation of the docket fees.

586

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
Unfortunately, private respondents never alleged

in their Amended Complaint, much less in the prayer
portion thereof, the fair market value of the subject
res as stated in the Tax Declaration or current zonal
valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which
[sic] is higher, or if there is none, the stated value
thereof, to serve as basis for the receiving clerk in
computing and arriving at the proper amount of filing
fee due thereon. In the absence of such allegation, it
cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC
has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
petitioners’ action. There is therefore no showing on
the face of the complaint that the RTC has exclusive
jurisdiction over the action of the private respondents.
Hence, the RTC erred in taking cognizance of the case
despite private respondents’ nonpayment of the
correct docket fees which must be computed in
accordance with Section 7(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, as amended.
The consistent rule is that ‘a case is deemed filed
only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the
actual date of filing in court,’ and that jurisdiction
over any case is acquired only upon the payment of
the prescribed docket fee which is both mandatory
and jurisdictional. x x x
x x x x
This case at bench bears similarity to Gochan v.
Gochan,16 where the Supreme Court held that
although the caption of the complaint filed by therein
respondents Mercedes Gochan, et al. with the RTC
was denominated as one for ‘specific performance and
damages,’ the relief sought was the conveyance or
transfer of real property, or ultimately, the execution
of deeds of conveyance in their favor of the real
properties enumerated in the provisional
memorandum of agreement. Under these
circumstances, the case before the RTC was actually a
real action, affecting as it did title to or possession of
real property. Consequently, the basis for
determining the correct docket fees shall be the
assessed value of the property, or the estimated value
thereof as alleged in the complaint. But
_______________
16 423 Phil. 491; 372 SCRA 256 (2001).

587
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 587

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
since Mercedes Gochan failed to allege in their

complaint the value of the real properties, the Court
found that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
the same for non-payment of the correct docket fees.
More to the point is Huguete v. Embudo.17 There,
petitioners argued that a complaint for annulment of
a deed of sale and partition is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and thus falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the Supreme Court
ruled that ‘the nature of an action is not determined
by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but
by the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs
prayed for. Where the ultimate objective of the
plaintiffs, like petitioners herein, is to obtain title to
real property, it should be filed in the proper court
having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the
property subject thereof.’
Likewise, in Siapno v. Manalo,18 the Supreme
Court disregarded the title/denomination of therein
plaintiff Manalo’s amended petition as one for
Mandamus with Revocation of Title and Damages;
and adjudged the same to be a real action, the filing
fees for which should have been computed based on
the assessed value of the subject property or, if there
was none, the estimated value thereof. x x x
x x x x
In fine, We rule and so hold that the RTC never
acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 4633-2K5,
hence, its act of taking cognizance of the subject
Complaint was tainted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave
abuse of discretion is defined as capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.
Given the foregoing, this Court finds it
unnecessary to dwell on the issue of prescription
raised by petitioners.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated 03
Sep-
_______________
17 453 Phil. 170; 405 SCRA 273 (2003).

18 505 Phil. 430; 468 SCRA 330 (2005).

588
Trayvilla vs. Sejas
tember 2007 and 21 February 2008, respectively, of

the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 9th Judicial Region,
Branch 18, Pagadian City, are DECLARED NULL
and VOID for having been issued without jurisdiction.
The Amended Complaint filed [sic] private
respondents docketed as Civil Case No. 4633-2K5 is
hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.19

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,20 which
the CA denied in its assailed November 19, 2012
Resolution. Hence, the present Petition.
In a March 19, 2014 Resolution,21 the Court resolved to
give due course to the instant Petition.

Issues

Petitioners raise the following issues:

1. Did the Court of Appeals ruled [sic] correctly
when it dismissed the complaint by reason of
Petitioner-Appellants’ alleged nonpayment of the
correct dockets [sic] fees due to its [sic] failure to
alleged [sic] the fair market value or the stated value
of the subject property in the amended complaint?
2. Did the filing of the amended complaint
sufficiently divested [sic] and ousted [sic] the trial
court of its jurisdiction over the case that had initially
validly attached by virtue of the Original complaint
for specific performance?22
Petitioners’ Arguments

In praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside
and that their Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 4633-
_______________
19 Rollo, pp. 39-47.

20 CA Rollo, pp. 70-77.
21 Rollo, pp. 113-114.
22 Id., at p. 26.

589
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 589

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
2K5 be reinstated, petitioners contend in their Petition

and Reply23 that it was error for the CA to order the
dismissal of their Amended Complaint simply because
additional causes of action were alleged and new reliefs
were prayed for, and the additional docket fees therefor
were not paid; that while reconveyance was sought in the
Amended Complaint, the principal action was still for
specific performance, and the reconveyance prayed for was
merely incidental thereto; that since the trial court
acquired jurisdiction over the case with the filing of the

original Complaint, it did not lose the same as a result of
the filing of the Amended Complaint; that jurisdiction
continued to attach even with the submission of the
Amended Complaint; that their failure to pay the
additional docket fees required for the Amended Complaint
does not result in loss of jurisdiction over the case —
instead, the Amended Complaint is simply not admitted
and the original Complaint remains;24 that instead of
dismissing the case, the Amended Complaint should have
been disregarded, or petitioners should have been ordered
to pay the deficiency in docket fees within a reasonable
period of time; that “the rule now is that the court may
allow a reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed
fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such payment, the
defect is cured and the court may properly take cognizance
of the action, unless in the meantime prescription has set
in and consequently barred the right of action”;25 and that
the rules of procedure should be liberally applied in their
case, as there is no intention to evade the payment of
additional docket fees, as is shown by the payment of the
original filing fees when the case was instituted.
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 106-108; Manifestation treated as petitioners’ Reply.

24 Citing Home Guaranty Corporation v. R-II Builders, Inc., 660 Phil.
517; 645 SCRA 219 (2011).
25 Citing Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte,
259 Phil. 927, 938; 180 SCRA 433, 443 (1989).

590

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
Respondents’ Arguments

Respondents, on the other hand, argue in their
Comment26 that the CA was correct in ruling that Civil
Case No. 4633-2K5 should be dismissed; that while the
complaint is for specific performance, the relief prayed for
includes reconveyance, which is a real action — in which
case the assessed value of the property should have been
alleged for the proper computation of the docket fees. Thus,
they pray for the denial of the Petition, with double costs
against petitioners.

Our Ruling

The Court denies the Petition.
As correctly ruled by the CA, while petitioners’ Amended
Complaint was denominated as one mainly for specific
performance, they additionally prayed for reconveyance of
the property, as well as the cancellation of Paglinawan’s
TCT

T-46,627. In other words, petitioners’ aim in filing Civil

Case No. 4633-2K5 was to secure their claimed ownership
and title to the subject property, which qualifies their case
as a real action. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure,27 a real action is one that affects
title to or possession of real property, or an interest
therein.
Since Civil Case No. 4633-2K5 is a real action made so
by the Amended Complaint later filed, petitioners should
have observed the requirement under A.M. No. 04-2-04-
SC28 rela-
_______________
26 Rollo, pp. 97-102.

27 Section 1. Venue of real actions.—Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in
the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
28 Revised Rules on Court Legal Fees.

591
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 591

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
tive to declaring the fair market value of the property as

stated in the current tax declaration or zonal valuation of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Since no such
allegation was made in the Amended Complaint, then the
value of the subject property as stated in the handwritten
document sued upon and restated in the Amended
Complaint should be the basis for determining jurisdiction
and the amount of docket fees to be paid.
The CA is correct in its general observation that in the
absence of the required declaration of the fair market value
as stated in the current tax declaration or zonal valuation
of the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC
or first level court has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the petitioners’ action, since the jurisdiction of these
courts is determined on the basis of the value of the
property. Under applicable rules:

Jurisdiction of RTCs, as may be relevant to the
instant petition, is provided in Sec. 19 of BP 129,29
which reads:
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;
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
_______________
29 As amended by Republic Act No. 7691, entitled “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.’”

592

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
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.
On the other hand, jurisdiction of first level courts
is prescribed in Sec. 33 of BP 129, which provides:
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:
x 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 Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, 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.30

However, the CA failed to consider that in determining
jurisdiction, it could rely on the declaration made in the
Amended Complaint that the property is valued at
P6,000,00. The handwritten document sued upon and the
pleadings
_______________
30 Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R. Bautista v. Lindo, G.R. No. 208232,

March 10, 2014, 718 SCRA 321, 328-329.

593
VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 593
Trayvilla vs. Sejas
indicate that the property was purchased by petitioners

for the price of P6,000.00. For purposes of filing the civil
case against respondents, this amount should be the stated
value of the property in the absence of a current tax
declaration or zonal valuation of the BIR. Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and
Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-
2004, provides that —

a) For filing an action or a permissive OR
COMPULSORY counterclaim, CROSS-CLAIM, or
money claim against an estate not based on judgment,
or for filing a third party, fourth party, etc. complaint,
or a complaint-in-intervention, if the total sum
claimed, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS, PENALTIES,
SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND,
AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES
AND COSTS and/or in cases involving property, the
FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in
litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX
DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL
VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF
THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE
VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY THE CLAIMANT.
x x x (Emphasis supplied)

shall be the basis for the computation of the docket fees to

be paid. Since the value of the subject property as stated in
the Amended Complaint is just P6,000.00, then the RTC
did not have jurisdiction over petitioners’ case in the first
instance; it should have dismissed Civil Case No. 4633-
2K5. But it did not. In continuing to take cognizance of the
case, the trial court clearly committed grave abuse of
discretion.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed
November 29, 2011 Decision and November 19, 2012
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
02315 are AFFIRMED.

594

Trayvilla vs. Sejas
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—The Supreme Court (SC) has uniformly ruled

that the fair market value of the property at the time of
taking is controlling for purposes of computing just
compensation. (Secretary of the Department of Public Works
and Highways vs. Tecson, 756 SCRA 389 [2015])
The true measure of the property, as upheld by a

plethora of cases, is the market value at the time of the
taking, when the loss resulted. (Id.)

——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trayvilla V Sejas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trayvilla V Sejas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trayvilla V Sejas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/5/21, 3:44 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 782

G.R. No. 204970. February 1, 2016.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; In the absence of the

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 579

first level court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over

petitioners for the price of P6,000.00. For purposes of filing the

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

square-meter parcel of land in Tukuran, Zamboanga del

1 Rollo, pp. 21-34.

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 581

by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8,3377 (TCT T-

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondents moved for dismissal of the case, claiming

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

11 CA Rollo, p. 31.

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 583

ject matter is determined by the relevant

the action is filed, and the character of the relief

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

If the action involves both a money claim and relief

contrast, Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 imposes a fixed or

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 585

private respondents were not merely seeking the

amended, provides that ‘in cases involving real

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Unfortunately, private respondents never alleged

16 423 Phil. 491; 372 SCRA 256 (2001).

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 587

since Mercedes Gochan failed to allege in their

17 453 Phil. 170; 405 SCRA 273 (2003).

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Trayvilla vs. Sejas

tember 2007 and 21 February 2008, respectively, of

19 Rollo, pp. 39-47.

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 589

2K5 be reinstated, petitioners contend in their Petition

acquired jurisdiction over the case with the filing of the

23 Id., at pp. 106-108; Manifestation treated as petitioners’ Reply.

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

T-46,627. In other words, petitioners’ aim in filing Civil

as a real action. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997

26 Rollo, pp. 97-102.

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 591

tive to declaring the fair market value of the property as

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty

30 Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R. Bautista v. Lindo, G.R. No. 208232,

VOL. 782, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 593

Trayvilla vs. Sejas

indicate that the property was purchased by petitioners

shall be the basis for the computation of the docket fees to

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ.,

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—The Supreme Court (SC) has uniformly ruled

The true measure of the property, as upheld by a