DATINGALING, CHERYL MAINE M.

RUSSEL VS VESTIL, 304 SCRA 738

Facts:
On September 28, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents,
denominated DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION, with the Regional Trial
Court of Mandaue City,alleging among others that petitioners are co-owners of that
parcel of land situated in Liloan, The land was previously owned by the spouses
Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho and upon their death, the property was inherited
by their legal heirs, herein petitioners and private respondents. Since then, the lot had
remained undivided until petitioners discovered a public document denominated
DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A PREVIOUS ORAL
AGREEMENT OF PARTITION, which prompted private respondents to divide the
property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are also entitled to the
said lot as heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho. Petitioners
claimed that the document was false and perjurious as the private respondents were not
the only heirs and that no oral partition of the property whatsoever had been made
between the heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void
and an order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs.
On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value
of the subject land is P5,000.00 which under Section 33(3)3 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, Compostela.
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss6 saying that the Regional Trial
Court has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, as
amended. The Respondent judge issued an order dated January 12, 1995 granting the
Motion to Dismiss. A Motion for Reconsideration of said order was filed by petitioners
on January 30, 1995 alleging that the same is contrary to law because their action is not
one for recovery of title to or possession of the land but an action to annul a document
or declare it null and void,9 hence, one incapable of pecuniary estimation falling within
the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. On February 13, 1995, the respondent judge
issued another Order denying the motion for reconsideration.
HENCE, this Petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case?
2. Whether or not the said action is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation?
RULING:

1. We agree with petitioners.

The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one incapable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court.
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, we had the occasion to rule that:
[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature
of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on
the amount of the claim. However, where the basic 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, this Court has considered such actions as
cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and
are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
2. Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific
performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment; also
actions questioning the validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance
and to recover the price paid and for rescission, which is a counterpart of specific
performance.
While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation,
the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC
where the assessed value of the real property involved does exceed P20,000.00 in
Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20,000.00 or
P50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction
under Sec. 19(2).

HEIRS OF VALERIANO CONCHA VS. SPOUSES LUMOCSO, 540 SCRA 1

Facts:
Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., claim to be the rightful
owners of a lot situated in Cogon, Dipolog City, under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth
Act No. 141 (C.A. No. 141), otherwise known as the Public Land Act. Respondent
siblings Gregorio Lumocso , Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan and Jacinto Lumocso, are
the patent holders and registered owners of the subject lots.

Three complaints were filed respectively against herein petitioners assailing the validity
of ownership of petitioners to the said lots in question.On separate occasions,
respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases against them on the same
grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matters of the complaints;
(b) failure to state causes of action for reconveyance; (c) prescription; and (d) waiver,
abandonment, laches and estoppel.13 On the issue of jurisdiction, respondents
contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to Section
19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, as in each
case, the assessed values of the subject lots are less than P20,000.00.
Petitioners opposed,14 contending that the instant cases involve actions the subject
matters of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation which, under Section 19(1) of
B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
RTCs. They also contended that they have two main causes of action: for reconveyance
and for recovery of the value of the trees felled by respondents. Hence, the totality of
the claims must be considered which, if computed, allegedly falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC.
The trial court denied the respective motions to dismiss of respondents.15 The
respondents filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration, to no avail.
Dissatisfied, respondents jointly filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Preliminary
Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Restraining Order Ex Parte18 with the CA, which
reversed the resolutions and order of the trial court.
Hence, this Petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over action in the instant case?
RULING:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law and an
objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties.To determine whether a
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it is important to determine the
nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought.
The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve actions for reconveyance. An
action for reconveyance respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks
the transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other
persons names, to its rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to have a better
right.There is no special ground for an action for reconveyance. It is enough that the
aggrieved party has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered

owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value.
xxxx
Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove cloud on ones
title, the applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P.
129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, viz.:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction: x x x
(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;
x x x.
In the cases at bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in Cogon, Dipolog
City and their assessed values are less than P20,000.00, to wit:
Civil Case No.
5188
5433
5434

Lot No.
6195
6196-A
6196-B
7529-A

Assessed Value
P1,030.00
4,500.00
4,340.00
1,880.00.

Hence, the MTC clearly has jurisdiction over the instant cases.
Petitioners contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19(1) of B.P. 129
is erroneous.
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance44 of or for
cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the
classification of cases that involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein.
The original text of Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 as well as its forerunner, Section 44(b) of
R.A. 296, as amended, gave the RTCs (formerly courts of first instance) exclusive
original jurisdiction [i]n all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (conferred upon

the city and municipal courts under R.A. 296, as amended). Thus, under the old law,
there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter
of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 or one
involving title to property under Section 19(2). The distinction between the two classes
became crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 769148 in 1994 which
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include 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, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs. Thus, under
the present law, original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which involves title
to, possession of, real property or any interest therein under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129
is divided between the first and second level courts, with the assessed value of the real
property involved as the benchmark. xxxx

HILARIO VS SALVADOR, 457 SCRA 815

Facts:
On September 3, 1996, petitioners Cesar, Ibarra, Nestor, Lina and Prescilla, all
surnamed Hilario, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Romblon,
Romblon,alleging that petitioners own a parcel of land at Sawang, Romblon. The
defendant, on the other hand, constructed his dwelling on the said parcel of land and
after several demands to vacate the property, the defendant insited to stay because of a
prior approval from the petitioners' grandmother.
The private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the nature of the action, citing Section 33 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
Blg. 129, as amended by Section 3(3) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691. He averred
that
(1) the complaint failed to state the assessed value of the land in dispute;
(2) the complaint does not sufficiently identify and/or describe the parcel of land referred
to as the subject-matter of this action;
both of which are essential requisites for determining the jurisdiction of the Court where
the case is filed. In this case, however, the assessed value of the land in question is
totally absent in the allegations of the complaint and there is nothing in the relief prayed
for which can be picked-up for determining the Courts jurisdiction as provided by law.
The petitioners Opposed the Mption to Dismiss, to which the RTC issued an Order
denying the MOtion to Dismiss filed by the respondent holding that the action was

incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore, cognizable by the RTC as provided in

Section 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. The case pusued and the Trial Court
rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners. Aggrieved, the private respondent and
respondentintervenor Regidor Salvador appealed the decision to the CA, which
rendered judgment on May 23, 2003 reversing the ruling of the RTC and dismissing the
complaint for want of jurisdiction.
This gave rise to this petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Regional TRial Court has jurisdiction over the action of the
petitioners?
RULING:
1. It bears stressing that the nature of the action and which court has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the material allegations of the
complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the
action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the
claims asserted therein.18 The caption of the complaint is not determinative of the
nature of the action. Nor does the jurisdiction of the court depend upon the answer of
the defendant or agreement of the parties or to the waiver or acquiescence of the
parties.
We do not agree with the contention of the petitioners and the ruling of the CA that the
action of the petitioners in the RTC was an accion reinvindicatoria. We find and so rule
that the action of the petitioners was an accion publiciana, or one for the recovery of
possession of the real property subject matter thereof. An accion reinvindicatoria is a
suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real property as owner.
It involves recovery of ownership and possession based on the said ownership. On the
other hand, an accion publiciana is one for the recovery of possession of the right to
possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year
after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty.
The action of the petitioners filed on September 3, 1996 does not involve a claim of
ownership over the property. They allege that they are co-owners thereof, and as such,
entitled to its possession, and that the private respondent, who was the defendant,
constructed his house thereon in 1989 without their knowledge and refused to vacate
the property despite demands for him to do so. They prayed that the private respondent
vacate the property and restore possession thereof to them.
When the petitioners filed their complaint on September 3, 1996, R.A. No. 7691 was
already in effect. Section 33(3) of the law 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:
...
(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, attorneys 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.
Section 19(2) of the law, likewise, provides that:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.The Regional Trial Court shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
...
(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.
The jurisdiction of the court over an action involving title to or possession of land is now
determined by the assessed value of the said property and not the market value thereof.
The assessed value of real property is the fair market value of the real property
multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. The fair market
value is the price at which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to
sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy.
Even a cursory reading of the complaint will show that it does not contain an allegation
stating the assessed value of the property subject of the complaint. The court cannot
take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands. Absent any allegation in
the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot thus be determined
whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners
action.
xxxx
2. The exclusion of the term damages of whatever kind in determining the jurisdictional
amount under Section 19(8) and Section 33(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A.
7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of
the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main

cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Neither may the petitioners find comfort and solace in Section 19(8) of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended, which states:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
...
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other
cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items
exceeds Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
The said provision is applicable only to all other cases other than an action involving
title to, or possession of real property in which the assessed value is the controlling
factor in determining the courts jurisdiction. The said damages are merely incidental to,
or a consequence of, the main cause of action for recovery of possession of real
property.26
Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners, all the proceedings
therein, including the decision of the RTC, are null and void. The complaint should
perforce be dismissed.

QUINAGORAN VS. CA, 531 SCRA 104

Facts:
The heirs of Juan dela Cruz, represented by Senen dela Cruz (respondents), filed on
October 27, 1994 a Complaint for Recovery of Portion of Registered Land with
Compensation and Damages against Victorino Quinagoran (petitioner) before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch XI of Tuao, Cagayan, alleging that they are the coowners of a a parcel of land containing to which the petitioner started occupying a
house on the north-west portion of the property, by tolerance of respondents, in mid70's; In 1993, the respondents demanded herein petitioner to vacate the property to
which the latter refused, claiming ownership over the land. Thus, respondent prayed for
reconveyance of property, payment of rental with the amount of P5000 per month until
property is vacated, attorney's fees amounting to P20, 000 and costs of suit and other
relief and remedies available.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
case under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which expanded the exclusive original

jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to include all civil actions which involve
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein which does not exceed
P20,000.00. He argued that since the 346 sq. m. lot which he owns adjacent to the
contested property has an assessed value of P1,730.00, the assessed value of the lot
under controversy would not be more than the said amount. The RTC denied the Motion
to Dismiss for lack of merit. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed later but to no avail.
Thus, Petitioner then went to the CA on a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking
the annulment of the Orders of the RTC. The CA, in its decision, dismissed the
petitioner's action and affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus, this Petition for
Review.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over actions of recovery of property
regardless of the value of the property?
2. Whether or not the respondent must allege in their petition the assess value of the
property involved?
RULING:
1. The answer is no. The doctrine on which the RTC anchored its denial of petitioners
Motion to Dismiss, as affirmed by the CAthat all cases of recovery of possession or
accion publiciana lies with the regional trial courts regardless of the value of the
propertyno longer holds true. As things now stand, a distinction must be made
between those properties the assessed value of which is below P20,000.00, if outside
Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within.
Republic Act No. 7691 which amended Batas Pambansa Blg. . 129 and which was
already in effect when respondents filed their complaint with the RTC on October 27,
1994,26 expressly provides:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
xxxx
(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 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.
xxxx

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
(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 or whatever kind, attorneys 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. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court has also declared that all cases involving title to or possession of real
property with an assessed value of less than P20,000.00 if outside Metro Manila, falls
under the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court.
2. In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint must allege the
assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to
determine which court has jurisdiction over the action. This is because the nature of the
action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is
determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by
the plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the
plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein.

HEIRS OF GENEROSO SEBE VS HEIRS OF HEIRS OF VERONICO SEVILLA,

603SCRA 395
FACTS:
Sometime in 1999, spouses Generoso and Aurelia Sebe and their daughter, Lydia
Sebe, filed with RTC of Dipolog City a complaint against defendants Veronico Sevilla
and Technology and Livelihood Resources Center for Annulment of Document,
Reconveyance and Recovery of Possession of two lots, which had a total assessed
value of P9,910.00, plus damages. On November 25, 1999 they amended their
complaint to address a deed of confirmation of sale that surfaced in defendant Sevillas
Answer to the complaint. The Sebes claimed that they owned the subject lots but,
through fraud, defendant Sevilla got them to sign documents conveying the lots to him.
In his Answer Sevilla insisted that he bought the lots from the Sebes in a regular
manner.

While the case was pending before the RTC, plaintiff Generoso Sebe died so his wife
and children substituted him. Parenthetically, with defendant Veronico Sevillas death in
2006, his heirs substituted him as respondents in this case.
On August 8, 2006 the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter considering that the ultimate relief that the Sebes sought was the reconveyance
of title and possession over two lots that had a total assessed value of less than
P20,000.00. Under the law, said the RTC, it has jurisdiction over such actions when the
assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, otherwise, jurisdiction shall be with
the first level courts.14 The RTC concluded that the Sebes should have filed their action
with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dipolog City.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the Sebes but to no avai. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Sebess action involving the two lots valued at less than
P20,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC?
RULING:
1. Whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a particular action is
determined by the plaintiffs allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks
in the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts.
The gist of the Sebess complaint is that they had been the owner for over 40 years of
two unregistered lots in Dampalan, San Jose, Dipolog City, covered by Tax Declaration
012-239, with a total assessed value of P9,910.00.
xxxx
Despite demands by the Sebes, defendant Sevilla refused to return the lots, forcing
them to hire a lawyer and incur expenses of litigation. Further the Sebes suffered loss of
earnings over the years. They were also entitled to moral and exemplary damages.
They thus asked the RTC a) to declare void the affidavits of quitclaim and the deeds of
confirmation of sale in the case; b) to declare the Sebes as lawful owners of the two
lots; c) to restore possession to them; and d) to order defendant Sevilla to pay them
P140,000.00 in lost produce from June 3, 1991 to the date of the filing of the complaint,
P30,000.00 in moral damages, P100,000.00 in attorneys fee, P30,000.00 in litigation
expenses, and such amount of exemplary damages as the RTC might fix.
Based on the above allegations and prayers of the Sebess complaint, the law that
applies to the action is Batas Pambansa 129, as amended. If this case were decided
under the original text of Batas Pambansa 129 or even under its predecessor, Republic
Act 296, determination of the nature of the case as a real action would have ended the

controversy. Both real actions and actions incapable of pecuniary estimation fell within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
But, with the amendment of Batas Pambansa 129 by Republic Act 7601, the distinction
between these two kinds of actions has become pivotal. The amendment expanded the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include real actions involving
property with an assessed value of less than P20,000.00.
The power of the RTC under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa 129, as amended,46 to
hear actions involving title to, or possession of, real property or any interest in it now
covers only real properties with assessed value in excess of P20,000.00. But the RTC
retained the exclusive power to hear actions the subject matter of which is not capable
of pecuniary estimation. Thus
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 litigations 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 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;
x x x.
Section 33, on the other hand provides that, if the assessed value of the real property
outside Metro Manila involved in the suit is P20,000.00 and below, as in this case,
jurisdiction over the action lies in the first level courts. Thus
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
(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) x x x.
But was the Sebess action one involving title to, or possession of, real property or any
interest in it or one the subject of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation?
The Sebes claim that their action is, first, for the declaration of nullity of the documents
of conveyance that defendant Sevilla tricked them into signing and, second, for the

reconveyance of the certificate of title for the two lots that Sevilla succeeded in getting.
The subject of their action is, they conclude, incapable of pecuniary estimation.
An action involving title to real property means that the plaintiffs cause of action is
based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal rights to have
exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. Title is the legal
link between (1) a person who owns property and (2) the property itself.
Title is different from a certificate of title which is the document of ownership under
the Torrens system of registration issued by the government through the Register
ofDeeds.49 While title is the claim, right or interest in real property, a certificate of title is
the evidence of such claim.

xxxx
The present action is, therefore, not about the declaration of the nullity of the documents
or the reconveyance to the Sebes of the certificates of title covering the two lots. These
would merely follow after the trial court shall have first resolved the issue of which
between the contending parties is the lawful owner of such lots, the one also entitled to
their possession. Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not defendant
Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their property by making them sign documents of
conveyance rather than just a deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. The
action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the lawful owner of the
subject lots, jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of such lots.
Here, the total assessed value of the two lots subject of the suit is P9,910.00. Clearly,
this amount does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold value of P20,000.00 fixed by
law. The other damages that the Sebes claim are merely incidental to their main action
and, therefore, are excluded in the computation of the jurisdictional amount.

SAN PEDRO VS ASDALA, 593 SCRA 397

Facts:
Sometime in July 2001, private respondents, heirs of spouses Apolonio and Valeriana
Dionisio, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 42, a
Complaint against herein petitioners and Wood Crest Residents Association, Inc., for
Accion Reivindicatoria, Quieting of Title and Damages, with Prayer for Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction. Private respondents alleged that subject property located in
Batasan Hills, Quezon City, with an assessed value of P32,100.00, was titled in the
name of spouses Apolonio and Valeriana Dionisio; but petitioners, with malice and
evident bad faith, claimed that they were the owners of a parcel of land that

encompasses and covers subject property. Private respondents had allegedly been
prevented from entering, possessing and using subject property. It was further alleged
in the Complaint that petitioners Transfer Certificate of Title over their alleged property
was spurious. Private respondents then prayed that they be declared the sole and
absolute owners of the subject property; that petitioners be ordered to surrender
possession of subject property to them; that petitioners and Wood Crest and/or its
members be ordered to pay actual and moral damages, and attorneys fees.
Petitioners, for their part, filed a Motion to Dismiss said complaint on the ground that the
MeTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, as the subject of
litigation was incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The MeTC then issued an Order4 dated July 4, 2002 denying the motion to dismiss.
The petitioners then assailed the denial of the Motion to Dismiss and filed a Petition for
Certiorari on the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The Regional Trial Court Denied
the Petition which prompted the petitioners to file with the Court of Appeals another
Petition for Certiorari which was also denied by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this instant
petition.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the MeTC has jurisdiction over the action?
RULING:
1. Just to put the matter to rest, the Court reiterates the ruling in Heirs of Valeriano S.
Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, 540 SCRA 1 (2007), to wit: In a number of cases, we
have held that actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title
over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein. x x x x x x x Thus, under
the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a case is one, the
subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section 19(1) of
B.P. 129, or one involving title to property under Section 19(2). The distinction between
the two classes became crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in
1994, which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to
include 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, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs.
Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which
involves title to, possession of, real property or any interest therein under Section
19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the first and second level courts, with the assessed
value of the real property involved as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced
to unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier
administration of justice.

GENESIS INVESTMENT, INC. VS HEIRS OF CEFERINO EBARASABAL, 710 SCRA

399
Facts:
On November 12, 2003, herein respondents filed against herein petitioners a Complaint
for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Shares, Partition, Damages and
Attorneys Fees. The Complaint was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Barili,
Cebu.
On August 5, 2004, herein petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss contending, among
others, that the RTC has no jurisdiction to try the case on the ground that, as the case
involves title to or possession of real property or any interest therein and since the
assessed value of the subject property does not exceed P20,000.00 (the same being
only P11,990.00), the action falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC).
The Regional Trial Court granted the petitioners Motion to Dismiss. This prompted the
petitioners to file a Motion for Partial Reconsideration arguing that their complaint
involves several causes of action including one for annulment of documents, which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and, as such, falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The RTC likewise denied the Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
The petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari which was
also denied by the CA, including the Motion for Reconsideration which was later filed
upon the denial of the Petition for Certiorari. Hence, this PEtition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case?
RULING:
1. It is true that one of the causes of action of respondents pertains to the title,
possession and interest of each of the contending parties over the contested property,
the assessed value of which falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC. However, a
complete reading of the complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of the
suit, the allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is within the jurisdiction
of the RTC.
As stated above, it is clear from the records that respondents complaint was for
Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Shares, Partition, Damages and
Attorneys Fees. In filing their Complaint with the RTC, respondents sought to recover

ownership and possession of their shares in the disputed parcel of land by questioning
the due execution and validity of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale as well
as the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between some of their co-heirs
and herein petitioners. Aside from praying that the RTC render judgment declaring as
null and void the said Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale and Memorandum of
Agreement, respondents likewise sought the following: (1) nullification of the Tax
Declarations subsequently issued in the name of petitioner Cebu Jaya Realty, Inc.; (2)
partition of the property in litigation; (3) reconveyance of their respective shares; and (3)
payment of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees, plus appearance
fees.
Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which comprehends more than the
issue of partition of or recovery of shares or interest over the real property in question
but includes an action for declaration of nullity of contracts and documents which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Moreover, it is provided under Section 5 (c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court that where the
causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein. Thus, as
shown above, respondents complaint clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.