GR 104796; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104796 March 6, 1998
SPOUSES ROSALINA S. DE LEON and ALEJANDRO L. DE LEON, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GLICERIO MA. ELAYDA II, FEDERICO ELAYDA and DANILO ELAYDA, respondents.
FACTS
On August 8, 1991, private respondents filed a complaint for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of two parcels of land against petitioners. The complaint prayed for: (1) nullification or rescission of the Contract of Conditional Sale; (2) a declaration that the Deed of Absolute Sale was void ab initio; and (3) an order for petitioners to pay attorney’s fees of P100,000.00. Upon filing, the clerk of court required payment of docket and legal fees totaling P610.00. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, contending the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to nonpayment of the correct docket fees. They argued that fees should be based on the alleged value of the two parcels of land (P4,378,000.00), requiring an additional P21,640.00, not just the fees paid based on the claim for attorney’s fees. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered private respondents to pay docket fees based on the estimated value of the land. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that an action for rescission or annulment of contract is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, and thus the docket fee should be the flat rate of P400.00.
ISSUE
Whether in assessing the docket fees for an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale, the value of the real property subject of the contract should be used as basis, or whether the action should be considered as one not capable of pecuniary estimation subject to a flat rate.
RULING
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. An action for annulment or rescission of a contract is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Following the precedent set in Lapitan v. Scandia, Inc. and Bautista v. Lim, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought determines the classification. Where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where a money claim is merely incidental to the principal relief, the action is not capable of pecuniary estimation. An action for rescission is the counterpart of an action for specific performance, both requiring courts to investigate facts that would justify the act, and are thus exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts) as actions where the value cannot be estimated. Consequently, the docket fee for its filing is the fixed amount provided under Rule 141, §7(b)(1) of the Rules of Court, not based on the value of the property subject of the contract.