G.R. No. 136325 . July 29, 2005
MANUEL M. SERRANO, Petitioner, vs. EUGENIO C. DELICA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Eugenio Delica filed a complaint for cancellation of deeds of sale, transfer certificates of title, a joint venture agreement, and damages, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He alleged he was the registered owner of ten parcels of land in Muntinlupa City. Delica claimed petitioner Manuel Serrano and a co-defendant unduly influenced him into executing a special power of attorney and later an affidavit, leading to the fraudulent sale and transfer of his properties to the defendants. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction restoring Delica to possession. Petitioner filed consolidated motions, seeking dismissal for non-payment of the correct docket fee and the judge’s inhibition, which the trial court denied.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. The appellate court partially granted the petition, affirming the trial court on the docket fee issue but setting aside the preliminary injunction order, and left the inhibition matter to the trial judge’s discretion. Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether respondent paid the correct docket fee upon filing his complaint; and (2) whether the matter of inhibition should be left to the trial judge’s discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and dismissed the complaint. On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint is a real action, as it primarily seeks the recovery of title to or possession of real property, and the cancellation of deeds and titles is merely incidental to that recovery. Under Section 7(b) of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, for real actions, the assessed value of the property, or if none, its estimated value, must be alleged as the basis for computing the docket fee. Respondent failed to allege the assessed value in his complaint. While he alleged a BIR zonal valuation, this is not equivalent to the assessed value required by the rules. Consequently, the correct docket fee could not be computed and was not paid. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is vested only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees. The trial court thus did not acquire jurisdiction, making the complaint dismissible. Given this disposition, the second issue regarding the judge’s inhibition was rendered moot and academic. The complaint was ordered dismissed without prejudice.