Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
_______________
*THIRD DIVISION.
284
284
285
286
286
Purchase Price
P 9,340,000.00
P 28,000,000.00
P 12,000,000.00
P 1,600,000.00
P 1,600,000.00
Redemption Price
P 25,328,939.00
P 35,660,800.00
P 28,477,600.00
P 6,233,381.00
P 6,233,381.00
287
288
which, they were able to secure TCTs over the five parcels of land
in their names.
On 16 March 2006, petitioner filed before the RTC a
Complaint12 against respondents Tan, Obiedo, and Atty. Reyes,
for declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages, with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order (TRO). The Complaint was docketed
as Civil Case No. 2006-0030.
On the basis of the facts already recounted above, petitioner
raised two causes of action in its Complaint.
As for the first cause of action, petitioner alleged that as early
as 27 December 2005, its President already wrote a letter
informing respondents Tan and Obiedo of the intention of
petitioner to pay its loan and requesting a meeting to compute the
final amount due. The parties held meetings on 3 and 4 January
2006 but they failed to arrive at a mutually acceptable
computation of the final amount of loan payable. Respondents
Tan and Obiedo then refused the request of petitioner for further
dialogues. Unbeknownst to petitioner, despite the ongoing
meetings, respondents Tan and Obiedo, in evident bad faith,
already had the pre-executed Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized on
3 January 2006 by respondent Atty. Reyes. Atty. Reyes, in
connivance with respondents Tan and Obiedo, falsely made it
appear in the Deeds of Absolute Sale that Mr. Sia had personally
acknowledged/ratified the said Deeds before Atty. Reyes.
Asserting that the Deeds of Absolute Sale over the five parcels
of land were executed merely as security for the payment of its
loan to respondents Tan and Obiedo; that the Deeds of Absolute
Sale, executed in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement, constituted pactum commisorium and as such, were
null and void; and that the acknowledgment in the Deeds of
Absolute Sale were falsified, petitioner averred:
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 53-62.
289
289
290
290
291
292
293
294
Trial Court, Naga City and for the latter to compute and to collect the
said fees accordingly.19
295
296
297
No. 104796, March 6, 1998, not to mention the fact that if the said
judgment is allowed to stand and not rectified, the same would result in
grave injustice and irreparable damage to herein petitioner in view of the
prohibitive amount assessed as a consequence of said Orders.27
298
of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and
collect the additional fee.
In the Petition at bar, the RTC found, and the Court of Appeals
affirmed, that petitioner did not pay the correct amount of docket
fees for Civil Case No. 2006-0030. According to both the trial and
appellate courts, petitioner should pay docket fees in accordance
with Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Consistent with the liberal tenor of Sun Insurance, the RTC,
instead of dismissing outright petitioners Complaint in Civil
Case No. 2006-0030, granted petitioner time to pay the additional
docket fees. Despite the seeming munificence of the RTC,
petitioner refused to pay the additional docket fees assessed
against it, believing that it had already paid the correct amount
before, pursuant to Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
as amended.
Relevant to the present controversy are the following
provisions under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by
A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC30 and Supreme Court Amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-200431:
SEC.7.Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.
(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 ATTORNEYS 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
_______________
30 Re: Proposed Revision of Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court.
31 Guidelines in the Allocation of Legal Fees Collected Under Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, as Amended, between the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund and the
Judiciary Development Fund.
299
299
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.
In order to resolve the issue of whether petitioner paid the
correct amount of docket fees, it is necessary to determine the
true nature of its Complaint. The dictum adhered to in this
jurisdiction is that the nature of an action is determined by the
allegations in the body of the pleading or Complaint itself, rather
than by its title or heading.32 However, the Court finds it
necessary, in ascertaining the true nature of Civil Case No. 2006-
0030, to take into account significant facts and circumstances
beyond the Complaint of petitioner, facts and circum-
_______________
32 Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491, 501; 372 SCRA 256, 263-264 (2001).
300
300
301
302
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 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.
Likewise, in Siapno v. Manalo,35 the Court disregarded the
303
304
following reasons:
A careful examination of respondents complaint is that it is a real
action. In Paderanga vs. Buissan, we held that in a real action, the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as stated in Section 2(a),
Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, a real action is one affecting title to
real property or for the recovery of possession of, or for partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on a real property.
Obviously, respondents complaint is a real action involving not only
the recovery of real properties, but likewise the cancellation of the titles
thereto.
Considering that respondents complaint is a real action, the Rule
requires that 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.
We note, however, that neither the assessed value nor the estimated
value of the questioned parcels of land were alleged by respondent in
both his original and amended complaint. What he stated in his amended
complaint is that the disputed realties have a BIR zonal valuation of
P1,200.00 per square meter. However, the alleged BIR zonal valuation
is not the kind of valuation required by the Rule. It is the assessed value
of the realty. Having utterly failed to comply with the requirement of the
Rule that he shall allege in his
305
305
Serrano and the Spouses De Leon. The Court calls attention to the
following statement in Spouses De Leon: A review of the
jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in 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.
Necessarily, the determination must be done on a case-to-case
basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each. What
petitioner conveniently ignores is that in Spouses De Leon, the
action therein that private respondents instituted before the RTC
was solely for annulment or rescission of the contract of sale
over a real property.40 There appeared to be no transfer of title or
possession to the adverse party. Their complaint simply prayed
for:
1.Ordering the nullification or rescission of the Contract of
Conditional Sale (Supplementary Agreement) for having violated the
rights of plaintiffs (private respondents) guaranteed to them under
_______________
38 Rollo, pp. 88-89.
39 350 Phil. 535; 287 SCRA 94 (1998).
40 Id., at pp. 541-543.
306
306
Article 886 of the Civil Code and/or violation of the terms and conditions
of the said contract.
2.Declaring void ab initio the Deed of Absolute Sale for being
absolutely simulated; and
3.Ordering defendants (petitioners) to pay plaintiffs (private
respondents) attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00.41
307