G.R. No. 152575 ; June 29, 2007
FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD NAVARRO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Felicidad Navarro, an illiterate widow, filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Damages. She alleged she was the registered owner of two parcels of land. She claimed that through the fraudulent misrepresentations of several individuals, who convinced her to hand over her titles and affix her thumbmark on a document she believed was for obtaining a sugar quota, her certificates of title were cancelled and new ones were issued in the name of Carmona Realty Development Corporation (CRDC). The properties were subsequently claimed and developed by petitioner Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc.
Instead of filing an answer, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of prescription and lack of jurisdiction due to alleged non-payment of the correct docket fees. The trial court denied the motion, finding the docket fees were fully paid as certified by the clerk of court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the action had prescribed; and (2) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction despite the alleged insufficiency of docket fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. On the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that the action had not prescribed. The trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss as the order was interlocutory and not appealable. On the merits, petitioner argued the action prescribed in four years from the discovery of the fraud in 1982. However, respondent’s complaint essentially alleged the deed of sale was void ab initio due to absolute absence of her consent, as she was deceived into thumbmarking a document she did not know was a deed of sale. Under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, an action for the declaration of the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. The prescriptive period for annulable contracts based on fraud under Article 1391 does not apply to void contracts.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court held the docket fees paid were insufficient. The certification of the clerk of court is not conclusive. Jurisdiction is based on the payment of the proper docket fees as assessed on the value of the property in litigation. The Court ordered the clerk of court to reassess and determine the correct docket fees based on the assessed or estimated value of the properties, which respondent must pay. Failure to pay the correct fees would result in the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.