You are on page 1of 4


Barrido vs. Nonato

The MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting
title to real property, or for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000
(outside Metro Manila) or P50,000 (Metro Manila).

Quinagoran vs. CA
The rule that accion publiciana lies with the RTC no 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; where the assessed value is greater than the amounts mentioned, the
RTC has jurisdiction.

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.

Russell vs. Vestil

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation the 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 the Regional Trial Courts.

Barangay San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Accordingly, it falls
within the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts, regardless of the value of the
subject property.
Heirs of Sebe vs. Heirs of Sevilla
An action involving title to real property means that the plaintiff’s 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.
While title gives the owner the right to demand or be issued a certificate of title,
the holder of a certificate of title does not necessarily possess valid title to the
real property. The issuance of a certificate of title does not give the owner any
better title than what he actually has in law. Thus, a plaintiff’s action for
cancellation or nullification of a certificate of title may only be a necessary
consequence of the defendant’s lack of title to real property.

Heirs of Concha vs. Lumocso

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."

Sante vs. Claravall

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.

Supapo vs. Sps De Jesus

RA No. 7691 divested the RTC of a portion of its jurisdiction and granted the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear actions where the assessed
value of the property does not exceed P20,000.00, or P50,000.00, if the property
is located in Metro Manila. In view of the amendments, jurisdiction over actions
involving title to or possession of real property is now determined by its assessed

De Vera vs. Santiago

The amount involved is immaterial for purposes of the RTC's appellate
jurisdiction; all cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC
irrespective of the amount involved.

Gomez vs. Montalban

Since the interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable component of the
cause of action, not merely incidental thereto, and already determinable at the
time of filing of the Complaint, it must be included in the determination of which
court has the jurisdiction over the case.
Heirs of Bautista vs. Lindo
The complaint to redeem a land subject to a free patent is a civil action incapable
of pecuniary estimation.

Barrazona vs. RTC of Baguio

If the unlawful detainer case is based on the alleged violation of the terms and
conditions of the lease agreement or failure to pay the rentals, the demand
should NOT be to “pay OR vacate” but should be to “pay AND vacate.” Even if
the complaint is captioned “Collection of Sum of Money with Damages,” the
action is actually for ejectment or unlawful detainer where the demand is “to pay
and vacate.”

Resident Marine Mammals of Tanon Strait vs. Reyes

The Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases, which allow for a “citizen suit”
permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of
environmental laws.

Divinagracia vs. Parilla

in actions for partition, the court cannot properly issue an order to divide the
property, unless it first makes a determination as to the existence of co-
ownership. Co-heirs have vested rights over the subject land and, as such,
should be impleaded as indispensable parties in an action for partition thereof.

Briones vs. CA
When there is a stipulation on venue in a contract whose validity is being directly
assailed, compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition of its validity.

CGR Corporation vs. Treyes, Jr.

The only form of damages that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry is
the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation
of the property; other damages must be claimed in an ordinary action.

Dabuco vs. CA
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of allegation in the
pleading, while lack of cause of action to the insufficiency of factual basis for the
action. Failure to state a cause may be raised in a Motion to Dismiss under Rule
16, while lack of cause may be raised any time. Dismissal for failure to state a
cause can be made at the earliest stages of an action. Dismissal for lack of
cause is usually made after questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of
stipulations, admissions or evidence presented.
Newsweek vs. IAC
Where the defamation is alleged to have been directed at a group or class, it is
essential that the statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to
every individual in that group or class, or sufficiently specific so that each
individual in the class or group can prove that the defamatory statement
specifically pointed to him, so that he can bring the action separately, if need be.
The case at bar is not a class suit. Each of the plaintiffs has a separate and
distinct reputation in the community. They do not have a common or general
interest in the subject matter of the controversy.

Juana Complex I vs. Fil-Estate Land

The necessary elements for the maintenance of a class suit are: 1) the subject
matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons; 2)
the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to
court; and 3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or
representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned.

Marilag vs. Martinez

For non-payment of a note secured by a mortgage, the creditor has a single
cause of action against the debtor. The plaintiff cannot split up his single cause of
action by filing a complaint for payment of the debt and thereafter another
complaint for the foreclosure of mortgage.