G.R. No.

75919 May 7, 1987

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN ROXAS, ANDREW
LUISON, GRACE LUISON and JOSE DE MAISIP, respondents.

FACTS:

A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development Corporation against City Land
Development Corporation to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor Manchester. Manchester
also alleged that City Land forfeited the formers tender of payment for a certain transaction thereby
causing damages to Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This amount was alleged in the BODY of
their Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of same complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee
of P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on the allegation of Manchester that their action is primarily
for specific performance hence it is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

The court ruled that there is an under assessment of docket fees hence it ordered Manchester to amend
its complaint. Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the amount of claim for damages to
P10M. Said amount was however again not stated in the PRAYER.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the amended complaint should be admitted.

HELD:

No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A case is deemed filed
only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court. Here,
since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint, its as if there is no complaint to speak
of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint duly filed which can be amended. So, any
subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of the amended complaint is void.

Manchesters defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not merited. The
Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case is an action
for damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary estimation.

Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the body of the
complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment of the proper
filing fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the Supreme Court ruled that
from this case on, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the
amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said
damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to
comply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the
record.