GR 160384; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160384. April 29, 2005
CESAR T. HILARIO, et al., Petitioners, vs. ALLAN T. SALVADOR, Respondent. HEIRS OF SALUSTIANO SALVADOR, respondents-intervenors.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Hilarios, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against respondent Allan Salvador before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Romblon. They alleged they are co-owners of a parcel of land by inheritance and that Salvador constructed a dwelling thereon without their consent. The complaint did not allege the assessed value of the subject property. Salvador moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the action involved title to or possession of real property and, without a stated assessed value, it was presumed to fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) as per Section 33 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended.
The RTC denied the motion, ruling the action was incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus within its jurisdiction. During trial, petitioners presented a tax declaration showing a 1991 assessed value of ₱5,950.00. The RTC eventually ruled in favor of the Hilarios. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It held the action was a real action where jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property, and the assessed value shown (₱5,950.00) was within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of possession.
RULING
No, the RTC had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The action is clearly a real action—one for recovery of ownership and possession of real property. Jurisdiction over such actions is determined by the assessed value of the property involved, pursuant to Section 33(3) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691. At the time of filing, the law vested MTCs with exclusive original jurisdiction where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000.00, exclusive of interests and damages.
The complaint’s fatal flaw was its failure to allege the assessed value, a jurisdictional requirement. The assessed value subsequently presented in evidence (₱5,950.00) definitively placed the case within the MTC’s jurisdiction. The Court rejected the RTC’s characterization of the case as incapable of pecuniary estimation. In real actions, claims for damages are merely incidental; the primary subject is the real property itself, the value of which dictates jurisdiction. Since the RTC lacked jurisdiction from the inception, all proceedings therein, including its judgment, were null and void. The dismissal of the complaint, without prejudice to refiling in the proper court, was proper.