Tumpag v.
Tumpag
G.R. No. 199133 | September 29, 2014
BRION, J.
Petitioner: ESPERANZA TUMPAG, substituted by her son, PABLITO TUMPAG
BELNAS, JR.
Respondent: SAMUEL TUMPAG
NATURE OF THE Petition for review on certiorari assailing the
CASE decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the
complaint for recovery of possession and damages
that the petitioner filed before the Regional Trial
Court because the complaint failed to allege the
assessed value of the disputed property in the case
HOW DID THE CASE -Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of
GET TO SUPREME possession with damages against respondent before
COURT? [Procedural the RTC
History] -Resp filed motion to dismiss, alleging lack of
jurisdiction, among others
-RTC denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded
with the case; later decided in favor of pet
-Resp appealed to CA
-CA nullified RTC’s decision for pet’s failure to
allege in her complaint the assessed value of the
property; MR denied
-Thus, this case
SUMMARY OF FACTS Pet owned a parcel of land in Negros Occidental
while resp has been occupying part of such property
at the former’s tolerance. Pet later wanted to recover
the portion occupied by resp but he refused to vacate
the property thus pet filed an action against resp but
failed to allege the assessed value of the property in
the complaint; she just attached to it a copy of a
Declaration of Real Property indicating the assessed
value of the disputed property
DOCTRINE Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by
law, not by the parties’ action or conduct, and is,
likewise, determined from the allegations in the
complaint. Generally, the court should only look into
the facts alleged in the complaint to determine
whether a suit is within its jurisdiction. However,
there may be instances when a rigid application of
this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or
in prejudice to a party’s substantial right. HERE,
there is no reason to strictly apply the
abovementioned general rule, and to not consider the
facts contained in the Declaration of Real Property
attached to the complaint in determining whether the
RTC had jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case. A
mere reference to the attached document could
facially resolve the question on jurisdiction and
would have rendered lengthy litigation on this point
unnecessary. The test of the sufficiency of the facts
alleged in the complaint is whether, admitting the
facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment
upon the complaint in accordance with the plaintiff’s
prayer.
Facts:
 Petitioner Esperanza is the owner of a parcel of land in Barangay Tuyom,
Cauayan, Negros Occidental
o Respondent Samuel has been occupying a portion of not less than
1,000sqm of petitioner’s land for more than 10 years at the
tolerance of petitioner
 Petitioner later wanted to recover the portion occupied by respondent but he
refused to return to petitioner or vacate the said portion he has occupied
inspite of repeated demands from the former
o Petitioner alleged that to prevent her from recovering the portion
respondent occupied, respondent instigated his other relatives to
file a case against the her for cancellation of her title with damages
o The case was dismissed; respondent appealed to CA which then
affirmed the RTC
 However, respondent still refused to return the portion of land to petitioner
o Petitioner then brought the matter before the Office of the
Barangay Captain of Barangay Tuyom, Cauayan, Negros
Occidental for conciliation
o Respondent still refused to vacate the property
 Petitioner then filed an action against respondent
o Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging failure to
state a cause of action, that the action was barred by prior
judgment, and lack of jurisdiction
 RTC: denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded with the case
o During the pendency of the case, petitioner died and was
substituted by her son Pablito Tumpag Belnas, Jr.
 RTC: ordered respondent to return possession of the subject portion of the
property to the petitioner and to pay the petitioner actual damages, moral
damages, and attorney’s fees
 Respondent appealed to CA
o CA: nullified the RTC’s decision and held that the petitioner’s
failure to allege in her complaint the assessed value of the
disputed property warranted the complaint’s dismissal,
although without prejudice, because the court’s jurisdiction over
 the case should be "determined by the material allegations of
the complaint" and "cannot be made to depend upon the
defenses set up in court or upon a motion to dismiss for,
otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost
entirely on the defendant"
 MR denied
 Thus, this case
 Petitioner argues that:
o Respondent is estopped from assailing the RTC’s decision after
having actively participated in all stages of the proceedings
o The dismissal of her complaint was not warranted considering
that she had a meritorious case as attached to her complaint
was a copy of a Declaration of Real Property indicating that
the assessed value of the disputed property is ₱20,790.00
Issue/s:
W/N petitioner’s failure to allege in her complaint the assessed value of the
subject property warranted the complaint’s dismissal – NO
Judgment:
WHEREFORE, premised considered, we GRANT the present petition for review on
certiorari and SET ASIDE the decision dated November 30, 2010 and resolution
dated September 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CV No.
78155. Accordingly, we REINSTATE the decision dated June 3, 2002 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental in Civil Case
No. 666.
Ratio:
SC: The CA’s dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint for recovery of possession
is erroneous and unwarranted
 Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law, not by the parties’
action or conduct, and is, likewise, determined from the allegations in the
complaint
o Under BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, the jurisdiction of
Regional Trial Courts over civil actions involving title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, is limited
to cases where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds P20,000 or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
value exceeds P50,000, except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings
o Here, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession of
real property before the RTC but failed to allege in her
complaint the property’s assessed value; HOWEVER, attached
to the complaint was a copy of a Declaration of Real Property
showing that the subject property has a market value of
P51,965 and assessed value of P20,790
 Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the
complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction.
However, there may be instances when a rigid application of this rule
may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party’s
substantial right
o Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia: the RTC was allowed by SC
to consider, in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted
by the parties in deciding whether or not the complaint should be
dismissed for lack of cause of action
o Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Heirs of Valdez, et al: the factual
allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the
statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as
annexes or integral parts
 HERE, there is no reason to strictly apply the abovementioned general
rule, and to not consider the facts contained in the Declaration of Real
Property attached to the complaint in determining whether the RTC
had jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case. A mere reference to the
attached document could facially resolve the question on jurisdiction
and would have rendered lengthy litigation on this point unnecessary
 Respondent contends that the assessed value of the subject property is
actually much below than the value stated in the attached Declaration of
Real Property. However, the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in
the complaint is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can
render a valid judgment upon the complaint in accordance with the
plaintiff’s prayer. The defendant, in filing a motion to dismiss,
hypothetically admits the truth of the factual and material allegations
in the complaint, as well as the documents attached to a complaint
whose due execution and genuineness are not denied under oath by the
defendant; these attachments must be considered as part of the
complaint without need of introducing evidence thereon
 However, respondent is not estopped from assailing the RTC’s jurisdiction
over the subject civil case
o Records show that the respondent has consistently brought the
issue of the court's lack of jurisdiction in his motions, pleadings
and submissions throughout the proceedings, until the CA
dismissed the petitioner's complaint, not on the basis of a finding
of lack of jurisdiction, but due to the insufficiency of the
petitioner's complaint, i.e. failure to allege the assessed value of the
subject property
o Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case can
always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal,
since jurisdictional issues, as a rule, cannot be acquired
through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or
conferred by the acquiescence of the court