G.R. No.

176492 October 20, 2014

MARIETTA N. BARRIDO, Petitioner,

vs.
LEONARDO V. NONATO, Respondent.

FACTS:

 Petitioner is questioning the decision of the CA affirming the RTC’s decision in ordering
the partition of the subject property.

 When the petitioner and respondent ‘s marriage was declared null and void and since
there was no more reason to maintain their co-ownership over the property, Nonato asked
Barrido for partition, but the latter refused

 Thus, respondent filed a Complaint for partition before the Municipal Trial Court

 Petitioner alleged that the subject property was already sold to their children and filed a
Complaint for partition before the Municipal Trial Court and likewise moved for the
dismissal of the complaint because the MTCC lacked jurisdiction, the partition case
being an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.

 MTCC ruled in favour of the petitioner, which later on appealed by the respondent before
the RTC.

 RTC reversed the MTCC’s decision and ruled in partitioning the subject property.

 Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision and held that since the property’s
assessed value was only ₱8,080.00, it clearly fell within the MTCC’s jurisdiction.

 although the RTC erred in relying on Article 129 of the FamilyCode, instead of Article
147, the dispositive portion of its decision still correctly ordered the equitable
partition of the property.

 Petitioner filed for motion for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE:

 Whether MTCC has jurisdiction over the case involving real actions particularly on
partition of a real property (In this case, with assessed value of P8,080.00)
HELD:

 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.

Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides:

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts

and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases.– Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

xxxx

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the propertyor interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(₱20,000.00)or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does
not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7691)9

 Here, the subject property’s assessed value was merely ₱8,080.00, an amount which
certainly does not exceed the required limit of ₱20,000.00 for civil actions outside
Metro Manila tofall within the jurisdiction of the MTCC.

Therefore, the lower court correctly took cognizance of the instant case.
G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999

EULALIA RUSSELL, PUPERTO TAUTHO, FRANCISCO TAUTHO, SUSANA T.

REALES, APITACIO TAUTHO, DANILO TAUTHO, JUDITHA PROS, GREGORIO
TAUTHO, DEODITA T. JUDILLA, AGRIPINO TAUTHO, FELIX TAUTHO, WILLIAM
TAUTHO, AND MARILYN PERALES, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE AUGUSTINE A. VESTlL, ADRIANO TAGALOG, MARCELO TAUTHO,
JUANITA MENDOZA, DOMINGO BANTILAN, RAUL BATALUNA AND ARTEMIO
CABATINGAN, respondent.

FACTS:

 Petitioners filed petition for certiorari to set aside the order dismissing the complaint filed
by petitioners on ground of lack of jurisdiction.

 petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents, denominated "DECLARATION

OF NULLITY AND PARTITION," with the Regional Trial Court

 It is alleged that petitioners are co-owners of the subject parcel of land. Upon the death of
said spouses, the property was inherited by their legal heirs, herein petitioners and private
respondents.

 Since then, the lot had remained undivided until petitioners discovered a public document
denominated "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF A
PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT OF PARTITION,"

By virtue of this deed, private respondents divided the property among themselves to the
exclusion of petitioners who are also entitled to the said lot as heirs

 Petitioners filed a complaint with the RTC contending that the respondents were not the
only heirs and that no oral partition of the property whatsoever had been made between
the heirs.

The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an order be issued
to partition the land among all the heirs.

 private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the subject land is
P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A.
No. 7691, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Curt of
Liloan, Compostela.
 Petitioners filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss but said motion was granted,
resulting to the filing of motion for reconsideration of the petitioners.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a case regarding the
Declaration of Nullity and Partition of the subject property

HELD:
 The court held that RTC has jurisdiction to try this case as the subject matter of the
complaint in this case is annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF
HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION." And
it should be noted that the division of the property is only incidental to the main matter.

 The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the
document in which private respondents declared themselves as the only heirs and divided
his property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who also claim to be legal
heirs and entitled to the property

While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to
the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-described.

 It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law
and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims
asserted therein.

*The Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or
remedy sought.

*Capable of Pecuniary estimation:

- If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money. (Whether jurisdiction is in the

municipal courts or in instance would depend on the amount of the claim)

*Incapable of Pecuniary estimation:

- 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 (Court has considered such where the subject of the litigation may not be
estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by RTC)

- those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of

judgment
- actions questioning the validity of a mortgage
- annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid
- for rescission, which is a counterpart of specific performance
G.R. No. 158121 December 12, 2007

HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA, SR. NAMELY: TERESITA CONCHA-PARAN,

VALERIANO P. CONCHA, JR., RAMON P. CONCHA, EDUARDO P. CONCHA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN, REYNALDO P. CONCHA, ALBERTO
P. CONCHA, BERNARDO P. CONCHA and GLORIA, petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES GREGORIO J. LUMOCSO1 and BIENVENIDA GUYA, CRISTITA J.
LUMOCSO VDA. DE DAAN, AND SPOUSES JACINTO J. LUMOCSO and BALBINA T.
LUMOCSO,2 respondents.

FACTS:
 Petitioners claim to be the rightful owners of the subject parcel of land (Lot No. 6195),
who filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with Damages
against "Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida Guya."

They sought to annul Free Patent No. (IX-8)985 and the corresponding Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-22556 issued in the name of "Gregorio Lumocso"
covering Lot No. 6195.

 Two separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were filed by petitioners,9 this
time against "Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan" for a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-
A and "Spouses Jacinto Lomocso and Balbina T. Lomocso" for a one-hectare portion of
Lot Nos. 6196-B and 7529-A

 On separate occasions, respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases
against them on the same grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject
matters of the complaints and such others

 respondents contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to
Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, as in
each case, the assessed values of the subject lots are less than P20,000.00.

 Petitioners opposed,14 contending that the instant cases involve actions the subject
matters of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation which, under Section 19(1) of
B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
RTCs.

 They also contended that they have two main causes of action: for reconveyance and
for recovery of the value of the trees felled by respondents.

 Hence, the totality of the claims must be considered which, if computed, allegedly falls
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
  RTC denied the motion to dismiss of the respondents, as well as the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration

ISSUE:
 Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over this case involving reconveyance

HELD:
 The law is emphatic that in determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the
assessed value of the realty involved that should be computed.

 In this case, there is no dispute that the assessed values of the subject properties as shown
by their tax declarations are less than P20,000.00.

 Clearly, jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC.

 The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve actions for reconveyance.

The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the instant cases typify/ characterized as an action
for reconveyance

 There is no special ground for an action for reconveyance. It is enough that the
aggrieved party has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered
owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value.

 Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to remove cloud on one's
title, the applicable law to determine which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of
B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691

 Petitioners' contention that this case is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation under
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19(1) of B.P. 129 is
erroneous.

* To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it is
important to determine the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought.
G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016

FILOMENA CABLING, Petitioner, v. RODRIGO DANGCALAN, Respondent.

FACTS:

 This case stemmed from the Complaint for recovery of possession and damages filed
by Filomena Cabling (petitioner) against Rodrigo Dangcalan (respondent) over
respondent's alleged encroachment on petitioner's property

 Despite knowing the boundaries of their respective properties, however, respondent

constructed a perimeter fence that encroached on petitioner's land.

 After several unheeded demands for respondent to remove the encroachment and a failed
conference before the Lupong Tagapamayapa, petitioner filed the Complaint before the
MCTC

 Respondent denied any encroachment on petitioner's property and raised prescription as

an affirmative defense. Petitioner filed her Complaint only in 2001, which was beyond
the 10-year period for acquisitive prescription under Article 1134 of the New Civil Code

 After trial, the MCTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner. It ruled that respondent's
perimeter fence had indeed encroached on some 13 square meters of petitioner's property.

The court further ruled that respondent was a builder in bad faith, because he did not
verify the actual boundaries of the lot that he had purchased from petitioner's brother

 Upon appeal by respondent, however, the RTC ruled differently. It ruled in favour of the
respondent on the issue of prescription because respondent had raised it in a timely
manner, via an Amended Answer

 Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA, which denied said petition and annulled
both the RTC and MCTC Decisions for lack of jurisdiction.

 the CA ruled that the MCTC had no jurisdiction because the Complaint was clearly
an accion publiciana. As such, it was a plenary action for the recovery of the real
right of possession, which properly fell under the RTC's jurisdiction.

Accion publiciana
- is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought
in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than
one year.
- It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of
realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the
complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff
 out of possession or defendant’s possession had become illegal, the action will
be, not one of the forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.

accion reivindicatoria

- is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in
an ordinary civil proceeding.

ISSUE:

 Whether the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the case involving accion publiciana

HELD:

 The MCTC correctly exercised its exclusive and original jurisdiction in finding for
petitioner as the plaintiff.

 As early as 2001, this Court had already declare that all cases involving title to or
possession of real property with an assessed value of less than P20,000, if outside Metro
Manila, fall under the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court

 In the present case, the action is characterized as accion publiciana and To determine
which court has jurisdiction over the action, the complaint must allege the assessed
value of the real property subject of the complaint.

 On the other hand, the appeal of respondent, as the defendant, properly fell under the
appellate jurisdiction of the RTC, under Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended.

 Respondent, on the other hand, has not filed any comment despite Our repeated directives
to his counsel on record.

Suffice/ enough it to say that the errors ascribed by petitioner to the RTC Decision are
factual issues that properly belong to the jurisdiction of the CA.