G.R. No. 117439 February 25, 1999.
CONRADO COLARINA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE NILO MALANYAON, RTC-Br. 32, Pili, Camarines Sur; ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST; COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and BICOL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Conrado Colarina owned several parcels of land totaling about 6,340 hectares placed under the compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law ( R.A. No. 6657 ). Seeking compensation, he expressed interest in swapping his land for the assets of the foreclosed Bicol Sugar Development Corporation (BISUDECO), which were under the disposition of the Assets Privatization Trust (APT). On June 22, 1992, petitioner submitted a bid of P270,000,000.00 plus 3% of gross sales for five years for the BISUDECO assets, proposing to pay with his lands taken by the DAR. His request for exemption from the required 10% cash bond was denied, and due to his failure to post the bond, he was disqualified from the bidding. Respondent Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative (BAPCI) became the only qualified bidder, and a deed of sale for P160,000,000.00 was executed in its favor. On November 4, 1992, petitioner filed a complaint (later amended) before the RTC of Camarines Sur for Cancellation and Annulment of Sale or Award, Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction, Restraining Order and Damages against APT, the Committee on Privatization (COP), DAR, and BAPCI. He prayed for the nullification of the sale to BAPCI and for an order directing the defendants to effect the swapping of his land with the BISUDECO assets. Petitioner paid only P415.00 as docket fees. Respondent BAPCI argued the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction due to non-payment of the correct docket fee, which should be based on the value of the disputed property (P270,000,000.00). The trial court directed petitioner to pay the deficient docket fees of P1,350,850.00 (less the P415.00 paid). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint filed by petitioner is capable of pecuniary estimation, thereby requiring the payment of docket fees based on the value of the subject matter of the litigation (the BISUDECO assets valued at P270,000,000.00), or whether it is a case not capable of pecuniary estimation where the docket fee should be based only on the amount of attorney’s fees claimed (P200,000.00).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint is capable of pecuniary estimation. The primary and ultimate intention of petitioner, as evident from the allegations in his Amended Complaint, is to recover the BISUDECO assets as payment for his landholdings. He sought not merely the annulment of the sale to BAPCI but also a declaration that he is the winning bidder and an order for the swapping of his land with the assets. Consequently, the value of the subject property (P270,000,000.00) is pecuniarily determinable. The case is not beyond pecuniary estimation but is akin to a collection case. Therefore, the trial court correctly directed petitioner to pay the proper docket fees based on the value of the property. The Court also held that certiorari was not the proper remedy as an appeal would still be available. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and the petition was denied.