GR 140973; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140973 ; November 11, 2004
JUSTINO LARESMA, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO P. ABELLANA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Antonio Abellana filed a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioner Justino Laresma before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo, Cebu. Abellana alleged he was the registered owner of an agricultural lot covered by TCT No. 47171 and that Laresma, by means of threat, strategy, and stealth, had taken possession of it since 1985. Laresma, in his answer, claimed the dispute was agrarian in nature, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). He asserted he and his wife were beneficiaries under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program, holding a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) for a portion allegedly within Abellana’s titled property. The RTC proceeded with the case, conducted an ocular inspection, and eventually ruled in favor of Abellana, ordering Laresma to vacate the property.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of possession filed by respondent Abellana.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court nullified the RTC decision for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over an action for recovery of possession of real property is determined by the assessed value of the property, not by the nature of the parties’ claims or defenses. Under the law, the Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction if the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00. A scrutiny of the complaint revealed it did not allege the assessed value of the subject property. Furthermore, evidence, specifically realty tax receipts, showed the assessed value in 1993 was only P8,300.00. Consequently, the Municipal Trial Court of Aloguinsan, Cebu, and not the RTC of Toledo City, had exclusive jurisdiction over the action. Since jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived or vested by the parties’ agreement, all proceedings before the RTC, including its judgment, were declared null and void. The Court found no need to resolve the other issues, including the alleged agrarian nature of the dispute, after establishing this jurisdictional defect.