FIRSTDIVISION

HEIRSOFVALERIANOS.CONCHA,G.R.No.158121
SR.NAMELY:TERESITACONCHA
PARAN,VALERIANOP.CONCHA,
JR.,RAMONP.CONCHA,EDUARDO
P.CONCHA,REPRESENTEDBYHIS
LEGALGUARDIAN,REYNALDOP.
CONCHA,ALBERTOP.CONCHA,
BERNARDOP.CONCHAandGLORIAPresent:
P.CONCHANUNAG,
Petitioners,PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
versusCORONA,and
AZCUNA,JJ.
[1]
SPOUSESGREGORIOJ.LUMOCSO
andBIENVENIDAGUYA,CRISTITA
J.LUMOCSOVDA.DEDAAN,AND
SPOUSESJACINTOJ.LUMOCSOPromulgated:
[2]
andBALBINAT.LUMOCSO,
Respondents.December12,2007

xx

DECISION
PUNO,C.J.:

OnappealbycertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtarethe
[3]
[4]
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 59499,
[5]
[6]
annullingtheresolutions andorder of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City,
Branch 9, in Civil Case Nos. 5188, 5433 and 5434 which denied the separate motions to
dismissandJointMotionforReconsiderationfiledbytherespondents.

Therelevantfactsareundisputed.

Petitioners,heirsofspousesDoroteaandValerianoConcha,Sr.,claimtobetherightful
ownersofLotNo.6195(CivilCaseNo.5188),aonehectareportionofLotNo.6196A(Civil
Case No. 5433), and a onehectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196B and 7529A (Civil Case No.
5434),allsituatedinCogon,DipologCity,underSection48(b)ofCommonwealthActNo.141
(C.A. No. 141), otherwise known as the Public Land Act. Respondent siblings Gregorio
Lumocso (Civil Case No. 5188), Cristita Lumocso Vda. de Daan (Civil Case No. 5433) and
Jacinto Lumocso (Civil Case No. 5434), are the patent holders and registered owners of the
subjectlots.

[7]
TherecordsshowthatonAugust6,1997,ValerianoSr. andhischildren,petitioners
Valeriano Jr., Ramon, Eduardo, Alberto, Bernardo, Teresita, Reynaldo, and Gloria, all
surnamed Concha, filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with
Damages against "Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida Guya." They sought to annul
Free Patent No. (IX8)985 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P
22556issuedinthenameof"GregorioLumocso"coveringLotNo.6195.Thecasewasraffled
totheRTCofDipologCity,Branch9,anddocketedasCivilCaseNo.5188.IntheirAmended
Complaint,petitionersprayedthatjudgmentberendered:

1.DeclaringFreePatentNo.(IX8)985andOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.22556
issuedtodefendantsasnullandvoidabinitio

2.DeclaringLotNo.6195or1.19122hectareasprivatepropertyoftheplaintiffs
underSec.48(b)ofCANo.141otherwiseknownasthePublicLandActasamendedbyRA
1942

3. OrderingthedefendantLomocsostoreconveytheproperties(sic)inquestion
LotNo.6195orthe1.19122hectaresinfavoroftheplaintiffswithin30daysfromthefinality
of the decision in this case and if they refuse, ordering the Clerk of Court of this Honorable
Court to execute the deed of reconveyance with like force and effect as if executed by the
defendant[s]themselves

4.OrderingdefendantLomocsostopayP60,000.00forthe21foresttreesillegally
cut P50,000.00 for moral damages P20,000.00 for Attorneys fees P20,000.00 for litigation
expensesandtopaythecostoftheproceedings

5.Declaringtheconfiscatedthree(sic)flitcheskeptintheareaoftheplaintiffsat
Dampalan San Jose, Dipolog with a total volume of 2000 board feet a[s] property of the
plaintiff[they]beingcut,collectedandtakenfromthelandpossessed,preserved,andownedby
theplaintiffs

6. The plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies which this
[8]
HonorableCourtmaydeemjustandequitableinthepremises.

OnSeptember3,1999,twoseparatecomplaintsforReconveyancewithDamageswere
[9]
filed by petitioners, this time against "Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan" for a onehectare
portionofLotNo.6196Aand"SpousesJacintoLomocsoandBalbinaT.Lomocso"foraone
hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196B and 7529A. The two complaints were also raffled to
Branch9oftheRTCofDipologCityanddocketedasCivilCaseNos.5433and5434,
respectively.InCivilCaseNo.5433,petitionersprayedthatjudgmentberendered:
1.Declaring[a]portionofLot6196AtitledunderOCT(P23527)4888equivalentto
onehectarelocatedatthewesternportionofLot4888asprivatepropertyoftheplaintiffsunder
Sec.48(B)CA141otherwiseknownasPublicLandOCT(sic)asamendedbyRANo.1942

2.Orderingthedefendanttoreconveytheequivalentofone(1)hectareforestedportion
of her property in question in favor of the plaintiffs within 30 days from the finality of the
decisioninthiscasesegregatingonehectarefromOCT(P23527)4888,locatedatitsWestern
portionandifsherefuse(sic),orderingtheClerkofCourtofthisHonorableCourttoexecute
thedeedofreconveyancewithlikeforceandeffect,asifexecutedbythedefenda[n]therself

3.OrderingdefendanttopayP30,000.00forthe22foresttreesillegallycutP20,000.00
formoraldamagesP20,000.00forAttorney'sfeesP20,000.00forlitigationexpensesandto
[10]
paythecostoftheproceedings.

InCivilCaseNo.5434,petitionersprayedthatjudgmentberendered:
1.Declaring [a] portion of Lot 7529A under OCT (P23207) 12870 and Lot 6196B
OCT(P20845)4889equivalenttoonehectarelocatedas(sic)thewesternportionofsaidlots
asprivatepropertyoftheplaintiffsunderSec.48(b)of[C.A.No.]141otherwiseknow[n]as
the[P]ublic[L]and[A]ctasamendedbyRA1942

2. Ordering the defendants to reconvey the equivalent of one (1) hectare forested
portionoftheirpropertiesinquestioninfavoroftheplaintiffswithin30daysfromthefinality
ofthedecisioninthiscasesegregatingonehectarefromOCT(P23207)12870andOCT(T
20845)4889 all of defendants, located at its Western portion and if they refuse, ordering the
ClerkofCourtofthisHonorableCourttoexecutethedeedofreconveyancewithlikeforceand
effectasifexecutedbythedefendantsthemselves[]

3. Ordering defendants to pay P20,000.00 for the six (6) forest trees illegally cut
P20,000.00 for moral damages P20,000.00 for Attorney's fees P20,000.00 for litigation
[11]
expensesandtopaythecostoftheproceedings.

[12]
The three complaints
commonly alleged: a) that on May 21, 1958, petitioners'
parents(spousesValerianoSr.andDoroteaConcha)acquiredbyhomesteada24hectareparcel
of land situated in Cogon, Dipolog City b) that since 1931, spouses Concha "painstakingly
preserved" the forest in the 24hectare land, including the excess four (4) hectares "untitled
forestland"locatedatitseasternportionc)thattheypossessedthisexcess4hectaresofland
(which consisted of Lot No. 6195, onehectare portion of Lot No. 6196A and onehectare
portion of Lot Nos. 6196B and 7529A) "continuously, publicly, notoriously, adversely,
peacefully,ingoodfaithandinconceptofthe(sic)ownersince1931"d)thattheycontinued
possession and occupation of the 4hectare land after the death of Dorotea Concha on
December 23, 1992 and Valeriano Sr. on May 12, 1999 e) that the Concha spouses "have
preserved the forest trees standing in [the subject lots] to the exclusion of the defendants
(respondents)orotherpersonsfrom1931"uptoNovember12,1996(forCivilCaseNo.5188)
or January 1997 (for Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434) when respondents, "by force,
intimidation,[and]stealthforciblyenteredthepremises,illegallycut,collected,[and]disposed"
of21trees(forCivilCaseNo.5188),22trees(forCivilCaseNo.5433)or6trees(forCivil
CaseNo.5434)f)that"thelandisprivatelandorthatevenassumingitwaspartofthepublic
domain, plaintiffs had already acquired imperfect title thereto" under Sec. 48(b) of C.A. No.
141, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1942 g) that respondents allegedly cut into
flitchesthetreesfelledinLotNo.6195(CivilCaseNo.5188)whilethelogstakenfromthe
subject lots in Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434 were sold to a timber dealer in Katipunan,
ZamboangadelNorteh) that respondents "surreptitiously" filed free patent applications over
the lots despite their full knowledge that petitioners owned the lots i) that the geodetic
engineerswhoconductedtheoriginalsurveyoverthelotsneverinformedthemofthe
surveytogivethemanopportunitytoopposerespondents'applicationsj)thatrespondents'free
patents and the corresponding OCTs were issued "on account of fraud, deceit, bad faith and
misrepresentation" and k) that the lots in question have not been transferred to an innocent
purchaser.

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)
[13]
prescription and (d) waiver, abandonment, laches and estoppel.
On the issue of
jurisdiction, respondents contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaints

pursuanttoSection19(2)ofBatasPambansaBlg.(B.P.)129,asamendedbyR.A.No.7691,as
ineachcase,theassessedvaluesofthesubjectlotsarelessthanP20,000.00.

[14]
Petitioners opposed,
contending that the instant cases involve actions the subject
mattersofwhichareincapableofpecuniaryestimationwhich,underSection19(1)ofB.P.129,
asamendedbyR.A.7691,fallwithintheexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoftheRTCs.Theyalso
contendedthattheyhavetwomaincausesofaction:forreconveyanceandforrecoveryofthe
valueofthetreesfelledbyrespondents.Hence, the totality of the claims must be considered
which,ifcomputed,allegedlyfallswithintheexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoftheRTC.

[15]
The trial court denied the respective motions to dismiss of respondents.
The
[16]
[17]
respondentsfiledaJointMotionforReconsideration,
tonoavail.

Dissatisfied, respondents jointly filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Preliminary
[18]
InjunctionwithPrayerforIssuanceofRestrainingOrderExParte
withtheCA,docketed
[19]
asCAG.R.SPNo.59499.InitsDecision,
theCAreversedtheresolutionsandorderofthe
trialcourt.Itheldthatevenassumingthatthecomplaintsstateacauseofaction,thesamehave
beenbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.TheCAruledthatanactionforreconveyancebased
onfraudprescribesinten(10)years,hence,theinstantcomplaintsmustbedismissedasthey
involvetitlesissuedforatleasttwentytwo(22)yearspriortothefilingofthecomplaints.The
CAfounditunnecessarytoresolvetheotherissues.

Hence,thisappealinwhichpetitionersraisethefollowingissues,viz:

FIRST WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FIRST

DIVISION) ERRED IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE COURT A QUO DENYING
THE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL, CONSIDERING THE DISMISSAL OF A PARTY
COMPLAINT IS PREMATURE AND TRIAL ON THE MERITS SHOULD BE
CONDUCTEDTOTHRESHOUTEVIDENTIARYMATTERS.

SECOND WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER

FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITIONERS' COMPLAINTS ON
[THE]GROUNDOFPRESCRIPTION.

THIRD WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER

FIRST DIVISION) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY

EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT PETITIONERS OWN THE SUBJECT

FOREST
PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE TITLES OF
PRIVATERESPONDENTS.

FOURTHWHETHERORNOTTHEPETITIONOFHEREINPRIVATERESPONDENTS
FILED WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FIRST DIVISION)
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHTLY FOR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS'
THEREIN FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF
SECTION 1 RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO SUBMIT CERTIFIED TRUE
COPIES OF THE ASSAILED ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH RENDERED
THEIR PETITION (CA G.R. 59499) DEFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE CITING
[20]
THECASEOFCATUIRAVS.COURTOFAPPEALS(172SCRA136).

[21]
In their memorandum,
respondents reiterated their arguments in the courts below
that: a) the complaints of the petitioners in the trial court do not state causes of action for
reconveyance b) assuming the complaints state causes of action for reconveyance, the same
havealreadybeenbarredbyprescriptionc)theRTCdoesnothavejurisdictionoverthesubject
matter of the instant cases d) the claims for reconveyance in the complaints are barred by
waiver, abandonment, or otherwise extinguished by laches and estoppel and e) there is no
specialreasonwarrantingareviewbythisCourt.

Sincetheissueofjurisdictionisdeterminativeoftheresolutionoftheinstantcaseyetthe
CA skirted the question, we resolved to require the parties to submit their respective
[22]
SupplementalMemorandaontheissueofjurisdiction.

[23]
In their Supplemental Memorandum,
petitioners contend that the nature of their
complaints, as denominated therein and as borne by their allegations, are suits for
reconveyance,orannulmentorcancellationofOCTsanddamages.Thecasesallegedlyinvolve
morethanjusttheissueof
titleandpossessionsincethenullityoftheOCTsissuedtorespondentsandthereconveyanceof
thesubjectpropertieswerealsoraisedasissues.Thus,theRTChasjurisdictionunderSection
19(1)ofB.P.129,whichprovidesthattheRTChasjurisdiction"[i]nallcivilactionsinwhich
the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation." Petitioners cited: a)
[24]
Raymundo v. CA
which set the criteria for determining whether an action is one not

[25]
capable of pecuniary estimation b) Swan v. CA
where it was held that an action for
[26]
annulment of title is under the jurisdiction of the RTC c) Santos v. CA
where it was
similarly held that an action for annulment of title, reversion and damages was within the
[27]
jurisdictionoftheRTCandd)CommoditiesStorageandICEPlantCorporationv.CA
whereitwasheldthat"[w]heretheactionaffectstitletotheproperty,itshouldbefiledinthe
RTCwherethepropertyislocated."Petitionersalsocontendthatwhileitmaybearguedthat
theassessedvaluesofthesubjectpropertiesarewithintheoriginaljurisdictionofthemunicipal
trialcourt(MTC),theyhaveincludedintheirprayers"anyinterestincludedtherein"consisting
of49fellednaturalgrowntreesillegallycutbyrespondents.Combiningtheassessedvaluesof
thepropertiesasshownbytheirrespectivetaxdeclarationsandtheestimatedvalueofthetrees
cut,thetotalamountprayedbypetitionersexceedstwentythousandpesos(P20,000.00).Hence,
theycontendthattheRTChasjurisdictionunderSection19(2)ofB.P.129.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the
[28]
general class to which the proceedings in question belong.
It is conferred by law and an
[29]
objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties.
To determine whether a
courthasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofacase,itisimportanttodeterminethenatureof
[30]
thecauseofactionandofthereliefsought.

[31]
Thetrialcourtcorrectlyheldthattheinstantcasesinvolveactionsforreconveyance.
Anactionforreconveyancerespectsthedecreeofregistrationasincontrovertiblebutseeksthe
transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other persons'
[32]
names,toitsrightfulandlegalowners,ortothosewhoclaimtohaveabetterright.
Thereis
nospecialgroundforanactionforreconveyance.It is enough that the aggrieved party has a
[33]
legalclaimonthepropertysuperiortothatoftheregisteredowner
andthatthepropertyhas
[34]
notyetpassedtothehandsofaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.

The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the instant cases typify an action for
reconveyance.Thefollowingarealsothecommonallegationsinthethreecomplaintsthatare

sufficienttoconstitutecausesofactionforreconveyance,viz:

(a) That plaintiff Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. together with his spouse Dorotea Concha
havepainstakinglypreserve[d]theforeststandinginthearea[oftheir24hectarehomestead]
includingthefourhectaresuntitledforestlandlocatedattheeasternportionoftheforestfrom
1931 when they were newly married, the date they acquired this property by occupation or
[35]
possession

(b)That spouses Valeriano S. Concha Sr. and Dorotea P. Concha have preserved the
foresttreesstandingin[theseparcels]oflandtotheexclusionofthedefendantsLomocsosor
otherpersonsfrom1931uptoNovember12,1996[forCivilCaseNo.5188]andJanuary1997
[forCivilCaseNos.5433and5434]whendefendants[,]byforce,intimidation,[and]stealth[,]
forcibly entered the premises, illegal[ly] cut, collected, disposed a total of [twentyone (21)
treesforCivilCaseNo.5188,twentytwo(22)treesforCivilCaseNo.5433andsix(6)trees
[36]
forCivilCaseNo.5434]ofvarioussizes

(c)Thatthisclaimisanassertionthatthelandisprivatelandorthatevenassumingit
waspartofthepublicdomain,plaintiffhadalreadyacquiredimperfecttitletheretounderSec.
48(b) of [C.A.] No. 141[,] otherwise known as the Public Land Act[,] as amended by [R.A.]
[37]
No.[7691]

(d)That[respondentsandtheirpredecessorsininterestknewwhenthey]surreptitiously
[38]
filed
[theirrespectivepatentapplicationsandwereissuedtheirrespective]freepatentsand
[39]
originalcertificatesoftitle[thatthesubjectlotsbelongedtothepetitioners]

(e)[That respondents' free patents and the corresponding original certificates of titles
[40]
wereissued]onaccountoffraud,deceit,badfaithandmisrepresentation
and

[41]
(f)Thelandinquestionhasnotbeentransferredtoaninnocentpurchaser.

Thesecasesmayalsobeconsideredasactionstoremovecloudonone'stitleastheyare
intendedtoprocurethecancellationofaninstrumentconstitutingaclaimonpetitioners'alleged
[42]
titlewhichwasusedtoinjureorvexthemintheenjoymentoftheirallegedtitle.

Beinginthenatureofactionsforreconveyanceoractionstoremovecloudonone'stitle,
the applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as
amendedbyR.A.No.7691,viz:

Section19.JurisdictioninCivilCases.RegionalTrialCourtsshallexerciseexclusive
originaljurisdiction:xxx

(2)Inallcivilactionswhichinvolvethetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,orany
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,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts

xxx.

Inthecasesatbar,itisundisputedthatthesubjectlotsaresituatedinCogon,Dipolog
CityandtheirassessedvaluesarelessthanP20,000.00,towit:
CivilCaseNo.LotNo.AssessedValue

51886195P1,030.00

54336196A4,500.00

54346196B4,340.00
[43]
7529A1,880.00.

Hence,theMTCclearlyhasjurisdictionovertheinstantcases.

Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation
undertheexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoftheRTCpursuanttoSection19(1)ofB.P.129is
erroneous.

[44]
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance
of or for
[45]
[46]
cancellationoftitle
toortoquiettitle
overrealpropertyareactionsthatfallunderthe
classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein."

TheoriginaltextofSection19(2)ofB.P.129aswellasitsforerunner,Section44(b)of
[47]
R.A.296,
asamended,gavetheRTCs(formerlycourtsoffirstinstance)exclusiveoriginal
jurisdiction"[i]nallcivilactionswhichinvolvethetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,
oranyinteresttherein,exceptactionsforforcibleentryintoandunlawfuldetaineroflandsor
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).Thedistinctionbetweenthetwoclassesbecamecrucialwiththeamendmentintroduced
[48]
by R.A. No. 7691
in 1994 which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first
levelcourtstoinclude"allcivilactionswhichinvolvetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,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." Thus,
underthepresentlaw,originaljurisdictionovercasesthesubjectmatterofwhichinvolves"title
to, possession of, real property or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is
dividedbetweenthefirstandsecondlevelcourts,withtheassessedvalueoftherealproperty
involvedasthebenchmark.Thisamendmentwasintroducedto"unclogtheoverloadeddockets
[49]
oftheRTCswhichwouldresultinthespeedieradministrationofjustice."

[50]
The cases of Raymundo v. CA
and Commodities Storage and ICE Plant
[51]
Corporation v. CA,
relied upon by the petitioners, are inapplicable to the cases at bar.
Raymundo involved a complaint for mandatory injunction, not one for reconveyance or
annulmentoftitle. The bone of contention was whether the case was incapable of pecuniary
estimation considering petitioner's contention that the pecuniary claim of the complaint was
only attorney's fees of P10,000, hence, the MTC had jurisdiction. The Court defined the
criterionfordeterminingwhetheranactionisonethatisincapableofpecuniaryestimationand
held that the issue of whether petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and
DeclarationofRestrictionoftheCorporationisonethatisincapableofpecuniaryestimation.
Theclaimforattorney'sfeeswasmerelyincidentaltotheprincipalaction,hence,saidamount
was not determinative of the court's jurisdiction. Nor can Commodities Storage and ICE
PlantCorporation provide any comfort to petitioners for the issue resolved by the Court in
saidcasewasvenueandnotjurisdiction.Theactionthereinwasfordamages,accountingand
fixingofredemptionperiodwhichwasfiledonOctober28,1994,beforethepassageofR.A.
No.7691.Inresolvingtheissueofvenue,theCourtheldthat"[w]heretheactionaffectstitleto
property,itshouldbeinstitutedinthe[RTC]wherethepropertyissituated.TheSta.MariaIce

Plant & Cold Storage is located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The venue in Civil Case No. 94
727076wasthereforeimproperlylaid."
[52]
[53]
Worse, the cases of Swan v. CA
and Santos v. CA
cited by the petitioners,
contradict their own position that the nature of the instant cases falls under Section 19(1) of
B.P.129.ThecomplaintsinSwanandSantos were filed prior to the enactment of R.A. No.
7691.InSwan, the Court held that the action being one for annulment of title, the RTC had
originaljurisdictionunderSection19(2)ofB.P.129.InSantos,theCourtsimilarlyheldthat
thecomplaintforcancellationoftitle,reversionanddamagesisalsoonethatinvolvestitleto
and possession of real property under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129. Thus, while the Court held
that the RTC had jurisdiction, the Court classified actions for "annulment of title" and
"cancellation of title, reversion and damages" as civil actions that involve "title to, or
possessionof,realproperty,oranyinteresttherein"underSection19(2)ofB.P.129.

Petitioners'contentionthatthevalueofthetreescutinthesubjectpropertiesconstitutes
"any interest therein (in the subject properties)" that should be computed in addition to the
respectiveassessedvaluesofthesubjectpropertiesisunavailing.Section19(2)ofB.P.129,as
amendedbyR.A.No.7691,isclearthattheRTCshallexercisejurisdiction"inallcivilactions
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)." It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the subject
properties may be included in the term "any interest therein." However, the law is emphatic
that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty
[54]
involvedthatshouldbecomputed.
Inthiscase,thereisnodisputethattheassessedvalues
ofthesubjectpropertiesasshownbytheirtaxdeclarationsarelessthanP20,000.00. Clearly,
jurisdictionovertheinstantcasesbelongsnottotheRTCbuttotheMTC.
INVIEWWHEREOF,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisherebyAFFIRMEDthat
the RTC of Dipolog City, Branch 9, has no jurisdiction in Civil Case Nos. 5188, 5433 and
5434.
Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZRENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
abovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


ChiefJustice

REYNATOS.PUNO

[1]
Alsoreferredtoas"Lomocso"or"Lumucso"intherecords.
[2]
TheCourtofAppealswasremovedaspublicrespondentpursuanttoSection4,Rule45oftheRulesofCourtandourrulingin
Serg'sProducts,Inc.v.PCILeasingandFinance,Inc.,G.R.No.137705,August22,2000,338SCRA499,504.
[3]
PromulgatedonNovember29,2002Rollo,pp.714.
[4]
PromulgatedonApril10,2003id.at16.
[5]
Annexes"M,""N"and"O"ofthePetitionid.at281295.
[6]
Annex"R"ofthePetitionid.at305306.
[7]
DiedonMay12,1999.
[8]
Rollo,pp.9899.
[9]
Id.at119125,143149.
[10]
Id.at124.
[11]
Id.at148149.
[12]
Id.at93106(CivilCaseNo.5188),119132(CivilCaseNo.5433),143158(CivilCaseNo.5434).
[13]
MotionforPreliminaryHearingofAffirmativeDefensesfortheDismissaloftheComplaintandtheInstantCase(CivilCaseNo.
5188),id.at169189MotiontoDismiss(CivilCaseNo.5434),id.at191210MotiontoDismiss(CivilCaseNo.5433),
id.at212231.
[14]
OppositiontoMotionfortheDismissaloftheComplaint(CivilCaseNo.5188),id. at 233248 Opposition to Motion [to]
Dismiss(CivilCaseNo.5433),id.at249264OppositiontoMotion[to]Dismiss(CivilCaseNo.5434),id.at265280.
[15]
InitsseparateResolutionsalldatedDecember9,1999id.at281285,286290,291295.
[16]
Id.at296301.
[17]
OrderdatedMay10,2000id.at305306.
[18]
Id.at307334.
[19]
DatedNovember29,2002id.at714.
[20]
Id.at3637.
[21]
Id.at568641.
[22]
Id.at703710.
[23]
Id.at722733.
[24]
G.R.No.97805,September2,1992,213SCRA457.

[25]
G.R.No.97319,August4,1992,212SCRA114.
[26]
G.R.No.61218,September23,1992,214SCRA162.
[27]
G.R.No.125008,June19,1997,274SCRA439.
[28]
AlliedDomecqPhil.,Inc.v.Villon,G.R.No.156264,September30,2004,439SCRA667,672,citingReyesv.Diaz,73Phil.
484,486(1941).
[29]
Republicv.Sangalang,L58822,April8,1988,159SCRA515.
[30]
PhilippineAssociationofFreeLaborUnions,etal.v.Padilla,etal.,106Phil.591(1959),citingPerkinsv.Roxas,72Phil.514
(1941).
[31]
Rollo,pp.283,288,293.
[32]
HiToneMarketingCorp.v.BaikalRealtyCorp.,G.R.No.149992,August20,2004,437SCRA121,143,citingWalstromv.
Mapa,Jr.,G.R.No.38387,January29,1990,181SCRA431,442.
[33]
Ponce,D.R.Florencio,ThePhilippineTorrensSystem(1965),p.213.
[34]
PhilippineEconomicZoneAuthorityv.Fernandez,G.R.No.138971,June6,2001,358SCRA489,499,citingLucenav.CA,
G.R.No.77468,August25,1999,313SCRA47.
[35]
Rollo,pp.94,120,144.
[36]
Id.at95,121,145.
[37]
Ibid.
[38]
Id.at9596,121122,145146.
[39]
Id.at96,122,146.
[40]
Ibid.
[41]
Id.at97,123,147.
[42]
SeeTolentino,ArturoM.,CommentariesandJurisprudenceontheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesVol.II(1992),pp.148149.
[43]
Rollo,pp.105,132,157,158.
[44]
Abrinv.Campos,G.R.No.52740,November12,1991,203SCRA420,421EstateofthelateMercedesJacobv.CA,G.R.No.
120435,December22,1997,283SCRA474.
[45]
Santosv.CA,G.R.No.61218,September23,1992,214SCRA162,163Swanv.CA,G.R.No.97319,August4,1992,212
SCRA114,121HeirsofSusanaDeGuzmanTuazonv.CA,G.R.No.125758,January20,2004,420SCRA219.
[46]
Mendozav.Teh,G.R.No.122646,March14,1997,269SCRA764,768HeirsofSusanaDeGuzmanTuazonv.CA,supra.
[47]
Alsoknownas"TheJudiciaryActof1948,"asamended,whichprovidesthat:
SECTION44.Originaljurisdiction.CourtsofFirstInstanceshallhaveoriginaljurisdiction:xxx
(b)In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, or the
legalityofanytax,impostorassessment,exceptactionsofforcibleentryintoanddetaineroflandsorbuildings,original
jurisdictionofwhichisconferredbythisActuponcityandmunicipalcourtsxxx.
[48]
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,"approvedonMarch25,1994.
[49]
SponsorshipSpeechofSenatorBiazon,RecordoftheSenatedatedOctober6,1993.
[50]
SupraNote24.
[51]
SupraNote27.
[52]
SupraNote25.
[53]
SupraNote26.

[54]
Hilariov.Salvador,G.R.No.160384,April29,2005,457SCRA815,826SeealsoAquino,H.L.,RemedialLaw,Doctrines
EnunciatedinPonenciasonJurisdiction,ProcedureandEvidenceIncludingUsefulOutlines(2002),p.218.