BALLATAN vs. CAG.R. No.

125683 March 2, 1999

FACTS:

T h e p a r t i e s h e r e i n a r e o w n e r s o f a d j a c e n t l o t s l o c a t e d a t B l o c k N o . 3 , Poinsettia
Street, Araneta University Village, Malabon, Metro Manila. Lot No. 24, isregistered in the name
of petitioners Eden Ballatan and spouses Betty Martinez andChong Chy Ling. Lots Nos. 25 and 26,
are registered in the name of respondentGonzalo Go, Sr. On Lot No. 25, respondent
Winston Go, son of Gonzalo Go, Sr., constructed his house. Adjacent to Lot No. 26 is Lot No. 27,
and is registered in thename of respondent Li Ching Yao. In 1985, petitioner Ballatan
constructed herhouse on Lot No. 24. During the construction, she noticed that the concrete fenceand
side pathway of the adjoining house of respondent Winston Go encroached onthe entire length of the
eastern side of her property. Petitioner Ballatan called theattention of the AIA to the discrepancy of
the land area in her title and the actualland area received from them. The AIA authorized
another survey of the land by Engineer Jose N. Quedding. On June 2, 1985, Engineer Quedding
found that Lot No.24 lost approximately 25 square meters on its eastern boundary that Lot
No. 25,although found to have encroached on Lot No. 24, did not lose nor gain any area;that Lot No. 26
lost some three (3) square meters which, however, were gained byL o t N o . 2 7 o n i t s
w e s t e r n b o u n d a r y. I n short, Lots Nos. 25, 26 and 27 movedwestward to the
eastern boundary of Lot No. 24. On the basis of
t h i s s u r v e y, p e t i t i o n e r B a l l a t a n m a d e a w r i t t e n d e m a n d o n r e s p o n d e n t s G o t o r e
m o v e a n d dismantle their improvements on Lot No. 24. Respondents Go refused. The partiesincluding
Li Ching Yao, however, met several times to reach an agreement onematter. On April 1,
1986, petitioner Ballatan instituted against respondents Go a Civil Case for recovery of
possession before the RTC, Malabon. The Go's filed their" A n s w e r w i t h T h i r d -
P a r t y C o m p l a i n t " i m p l e a d i n g a s t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s respondents Li Ching
Yao, the AIA and Engineer Quedding. On August 23, 1990, RTCdecided in favor of petitioners.
Respondents Go appealed. On March 25, 1996, theCA modified the decision of the trial court. It
affirmed the dismissal of the third- party complaint against the AIA but reinstated the complaint
against Li Ching Yaoand Jose Quedding. Hence, this petition for review on
certiorari
.
Petitioners questionthe admission by respondent CA of the third-party complaint by
respondents Goagainst the AIA, Jose Quedding and Li Ching Yao. Petitioners claim that
the third-party complaint should not have been considered by the Court of Appeals for lack
of jurisdiction due to third-party plaintiffs' failure to pay the docket and filing feesbefore the trial court.

ISSUE:
WON CA erred in admitting the third-party complaint despite the failure of respondents GOs to pay the
docket and filing fees before the trial court.

RULING:
The third-party complaint in the instant case arose from the complaint
of p e t i t i o n e r s a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t s G o . T h e c o m p l a i n t f i l e d
w a s f o r accion publiciana i.e
., the recovery of possession of real property which is a real
action. The rule in this jurisdiction is that when an action is filed in court, the complaintmust be
accompanied the payment of the requisite docket and filing fees. In realactions, the docket
and filing fees are based on the value of the property and theamount of damages claimed,
if any If the complaint is filed but the fees are notpaid at the time of filing, the court
acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the
fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant, barring prescription. Wherethe fees prescribed for
the real action have been paid but the fees of certain relateddamages are not, the court, although having
jurisdiction over the real action,
mayn o t h a v e a c q u i r e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a c c
o m p a n y i n g c l a i m f o r damages. Accordingly, the court may expunge those claims
for damages, or allow,on motion, a reasonable time for amendment of the complaint so as to
allege theprecise amount of damages and accept payment of the requisite legal fee. If thereare
unspecified claims, the determination of which may arise after the filing of thecomplaint or similar
pleading, the additional filing fee thereon shall constitute a lienon the judgment award. The same rule also
applies to third-party claims and othersimilar pleadings. In the case at bar, the third-party complaint filed
by respondentsGo was incorporated in their answer to the complaint. The third-party
complaints o u g h t t h e s a m e r e m e d y a s t h e p r i n c i p a l c o m p l a i n t b u t a d d e d a
p r a y e r f o r attorney's fees and costs without specifying their amounts. The Court of Appeal didnot err
in awarding damages despite the Go's failure to specify the amount prayedfor and pay the corresponding
additional filing fees thereon. The claim for attorney'sfees refers to damages arising after the filing of the
complaint against the Go's. Theadditional filing fee on this claim is deemed to constitute a lien
on the judgmentaward.