GR 228516; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228516 , August 14, 2019
RICARDO P. CARNIYAN, ET AL. vs. HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION
FACTS
Respondent Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC) filed a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioners over a parcel of land in Quezon City. Instead of filing an Answer, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the property’s assessed value was below the jurisdictional amount and HGC had not yet acquired ownership. They subsequently filed a Motion to Archive the case. The RTC denied both motions, ruling it had jurisdiction as the action involved possession of real property with an assessed value of P50,000.00, and that the Motion to Archive was dilatory.
Petitioners then filed a Motion to Expunge the prior order and for the judge’s inhibition. The RTC denied this, treating it as a prohibited motion for reconsideration, and directed petitioners to file their Answer within ten days. Petitioners failed to file an Answer. HGC moved to declare them in default. Petitioners filed another motion seeking to amend the prior order and reiterate their inhibition plea. The RTC denied this motion as a prohibited second motion for inhibition under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC and declared petitioners in default, allowing HGC to present evidence ex parte.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s orders, particularly the denial of the motions to dismiss and for inhibition, and the declaration of default.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. On jurisdiction, the RTC correctly assumed jurisdiction as the action was a real action (recovery of possession) where the assessed value of the property determines jurisdiction. Since the assessed value was P50,000.00, it was within the RTC’s exclusive original jurisdiction under the law applicable at the time of filing. The claim regarding HGC’s ownership pertains to the merits of its cause of action, not jurisdiction.
On procedural matters, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Motion to Expunge was correctly denied as it was a mere reiteration of arguments from the denied Motion to Dismiss, constituting an impermissible motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order. The subsequent motion for inhibition was a second motion, expressly prohibited by A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, rendering it a mere scrap of paper. Petitioners’ failure to file an Answer despite the RTC’s directive warranted their declaration in default under Rule 9, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. The RTC’s act of allowing ex parte presentation of evidence before the branch clerk of court was a valid exercise of its discretion under the same rule. No evidence was presented to show the judge acted with arbitrarity, passion, or prejudice.