G.R. No. 174908 ; June 17, 2013
DARMA MASLAG, Petitioner, vs. ELIZABETH MONZON, WILLIAM GESTON, and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BENGUET, Respondents.

FACTS

In 1998, petitioner Darma Maslag filed a Complaint for reconveyance of real property with declaration of nullity of an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet. The MTC ruled in favor of Maslag, finding respondent Elizabeth Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining the OCT over Maslag’s property, and ordered reconveyance, damages, and costs. Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC, through an October 22, 2003 Order, declared the MTC without jurisdiction over the subject matter, deeming the action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Citing Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, the RTC took cognizance of the case for decision on the merits. Neither party presented additional evidence. On May 4, 2004, the RTC issued a Resolution reversing the MTC Decision, setting aside the judgment, ordering Maslag to turn over possession of the land to Monzon, and remanding the case to the MTC to determine if Maslag was entitled to remedies as a builder in good faith. Maslag filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC Resolution. Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the proper mode was a Petition for Review under Rule 42 since the RTC acted in its appellate jurisdiction. The CA granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the RTC Resolution set aside an MTC Judgment; thus, the proper remedy was a Petition for Review under Rule 42, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Maslag’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing petitioner’s ordinary appeal, considering the RTC’s assumption of the case under Section 8, Rule 40 after declaring the MTC without jurisdiction, and consequently, whether the proper remedy from the RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 or a petition for review under Rule 42.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court clarified that the RTC’s October 22, 2003 Order, which declared the MTC without jurisdiction, was a jurisdictional error. The Complaint for reconveyance with declaration of nullity of title was an action involving title to real property. Jurisdiction over such actions is determined by the assessed value of the property under BP 129, as amended by RA 7691. The RTC erroneously classified the action as incapable of pecuniary estimation. Since the RTC took cognizance of the case pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40, it decided the case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution was rendered in its appellate capacity, as it reviewed and reversed the MTC Judgment. Therefore, the proper mode of appeal to the CA from such a resolution is a Petition for Review under Rule 42, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The CA correctly dismissed Maslag’s ordinary appeal for being an improper remedy. The mistake in the choice of remedy is attributable to the petitioner.