G.R. No. 237178 , December 02, 2020
Dominga Palacat, Petitioner, vs. Heirs of Florentino Hontanosas, represented by Malco Hontanosas, Eliza Hontanosas, Choche H. Candutan, Nery Hontanosas, and Hermie Hontanosas, Respondents.

FACTS

The respondents, heirs of Florentino Hontanosas, filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Specific Performance, and Damages against petitioner Dominga Palacat before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). They alleged ownership over an unregistered lot, Lot No. 6662-B, acquired via a compromise agreement. A survey by the DENR, initiated after an opposition to the respondents’ free patent application, indicated that the fence of the petitioner’s adjoining registered lot, Lot No. 6450, encroached on their property by about 6.7 meters. The petitioner refused a joint survey and barangay conciliation failed.
The petitioner moved to dismiss the amended complaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to allege the assessed value of the property, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and improper remedy of quieting of title. The MCTC dismissed the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, ruling the DENR had primary jurisdiction as the land was public. The RTC, on appeal, initially assumed jurisdiction but later reinstated the MCTC’s dismissal. The respondents then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the MCTC has jurisdiction over the respondents’ amended complaint.

RULING

Yes, the MCTC has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The Court ruled that the action, as pleaded, was essentially one for recovery of possession (accion publiciana), not for quieting of title, as the latter is an improper remedy for a mere boundary dispute. For accion publiciana involving unregistered land, jurisdiction of first-level courts is determined by the assessed value of the property. Although the amended complaint itself did not state the value, the attached tax declaration, showing an assessed value of Php 8,720.00, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the MCTC. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction or exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply because the core issue is the recovery of possession based on a claim of ownership, which is inherently judicial. The DENR’s prior involvement in the survey and patent opposition did not divest the courts of jurisdiction over the possessory action. The case was remanded to the MCTC for trial on the merits.