G.R. No. 175914 , February 10, 2009.
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Pablo C. Formaran III, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 21, Naga City, as Pairing Judge for Regional Trial Court Branch 22, Formerly Presided By Hon. Novelita Villegas-Llaguno (Retired 01 May 2006), Romeo Y. Tan, Roberto L. Obiedo and Atty. Tomas A. Reyes, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation obtained a loan of ₱95,700,620.00 from respondents Romeo Y. Tan and Roberto L. Obiedo, secured by real estate mortgages over five parcels of land. Upon petitioner’s failure to pay, the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated March 17, 2005, granting petitioner until December 31, 2005 to settle the debt, condoning interests and penalties, and requiring petitioner to execute Deeds of Absolute Sale over the properties “by way of dacion en pago,” dated January 2, 2006. The agreement allowed petitioner to redeem the properties by paying specified redemption prices. Petitioner executed the Deeds, which were notarized by respondent Atty. Tomas A. Reyes on January 3, 2006. Without payment by the deadline, respondents presented the Deeds to the Register of Deeds on March 8, 2006, securing titles in their names. On March 16, 2006, petitioner filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction/TRO, alleging the Deeds constituted pactum commisorium and that the acknowledgment was falsified. Petitioner paid docket fees of ₱13,644.25, initially assessed under Section 7(b)(1) of Rule 141 (action incapable of pecuniary estimation). The RTC, in an Order dated March 24, 2006, directed petitioner to pay additional docket fees, recomputed under Section 7(a) of Rule 141 based on the total redemption price of the properties (₱101,934,101.00), treating the action as one for the recovery of a sum of money or real property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Order.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly ordered the petitioner to pay additional docket fees, computed based on the total redemption price of the properties under Section 7(a) of Rule 141, instead of the initial assessment under Section 7(b)(1) for actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the relief sought. Petitioner’s primary objective was to recover ownership and possession of the five parcels of land by annulling the Deeds of Absolute Sale. While framed as an action for declaration of nullity, the essential relief sought was the recovery of real property, or alternatively, the recovery of a sum of money equivalent to the value of the property. The complaint alleged the Deeds were void for being pactum commisorium and that petitioner was “desirous and willing to pay its obligation.” The redemption prices stated in the Memorandum of Agreement provided a determinate valuation for the properties. Therefore, the action was capable of pecuniary estimation, and the correct basis for docket fees was the total redemption price of ₱101,934,101.00 under Section 7(a) of Rule 141. The Court held that the payment of the correct docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, and the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment of additional fees.