G.R. No. 146594 ; June 10, 2002
REBECCA T. CABUTIHAN, petitioner, vs. LANDCENTER CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rebecca Cabutihan entered into an Agreement with respondent Landcenter Construction & Development Corporation on December 3, 1996. The Agreement stipulated that Cabutihan, as Facilitator, would undertake the recovery and financing for the registration of a parcel of land in Parañaque owned by Landcenter. As compensation, she would be entitled to twenty percent (20%) of the total area recovered. A subsequent Deed of Undertaking dated February 11, 1997, executed by Landcenter’s authorized representative, Luz Baylon Ponce, confirmed this compensation and included other individuals with their respective percentage shares.
Cabutihan alleged she accomplished her undertakings and demanded that Landcenter execute a Deed of Assignment for her share. Landcenter refused. Consequently, Cabutihan filed a Complaint for specific performance with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. Landcenter moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient filing fees, and failure to implead indispensable parties (the other beneficiaries under the Deed of Undertaking). The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds of (1) improper venue, (2) lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of correct filing fees, and (3) non-joinder of indispensable parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s orders of dismissal. On the first ground, the action was not a real action but a personal action for specific performance arising from breach of contract. The primary objective was to compel Landcenter to execute a deed of assignment as stipulated, not to recover title or possession of real property. Therefore, venue was properly laid in Pasig City, where Landcenter held its principal office.
On the second ground, the Court held that an action for specific performance based on breach of contract is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the action, not the value of the property involved. Hence, the filing fees were correctly paid based on the action being incapable of pecuniary estimation, and the assessed value of the land was irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes.
On the third ground, the Court ruled that the other beneficiaries named in the Deed of Undertaking were not indispensable parties. An indispensable party is one without whom no final determination can be had. Cabutihan’s cause of action for her specific 20% share was separate and severable from the claims of the others. Their interests were not so interdependent that her claim could not be adjudicated without them. Moreover, non-joinder is not a ground for dismissal; the court may simply order their inclusion. The RTC therefore erred in dismissing the complaint.