G.R. No. 172293 ; August 28, 2013
ARACELI J. CABRERA and ARNEL CABRERA and in behalf of the heirs of SEVERINO CABRERA, Petitioners, vs. ANGELA G. FRANCISCO, FELIPE C. GELLA, VICTOR C. GELLA, ELENA LEILANI G. REYES, MA. RIZALINA G. ILIGAN and DIANA ROSE GELLA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Araceli and Arnel Cabrera, representing themselves and the heirs of Severino Cabrera, filed a Complaint for Collection of Agent’s Compensation, Commission and Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antique. They alleged that Severino was appointed administrator of respondents’ 24-hectare property. Upon his death, petitioners continued the administration with respondents’ consent and were instructed to find buyers, with a promised commission of five percent of the total purchase price. Petitioners introduced a broker, Erlinda Veñegas, to respondents. However, respondents later appointed Erlinda as the new administratrix and terminated petitioners’ services. Petitioners demanded payment of their five percent commission, which was refused.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, and lack of legal capacity of petitioners to sue for the other heirs. They argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the claimed commission, based on the property’s market value of ₱3,550,072, amounted only to ₱177,506.60—below the ₱200,000 jurisdictional threshold for RTCs outside Metro Manila. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling the action was essentially for a sum of money, not incapable of pecuniary estimation, and that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of the Complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Petitioners’ primary prayer was for payment of a commission equivalent to five percent of the property’s value, which is a claim for a sum of money. Such a claim is capable of pecuniary estimation. Since the computed claim (₱177,506.60) was below the jurisdictional amount of ₱200,000 for RTCs outside Metro Manila, the RTC correctly ruled it lacked jurisdiction. The claim did not involve title to or interest in the real property itself but merely a monetary obligation arising from an alleged agency.
Regarding the cause of action, the Court agreed with the lower courts that the Complaint failed to state one. A cause of action exists only if the complaint shows a legal right of the plaintiff, a correlative obligation of the defendant, and an act or omission by the defendant in violation of that right. The Complaint merely alleged that petitioners introduced a broker; it did not aver that a sale was consummated. The right to a commission under an agency to sell arises only upon the sale’s perfection. Since no sale was alleged, petitioners’ claimed right to commission remained inchoate. Thus, no cause of action was stated, warranting the dismissal of the Complaint.