G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20, 1989
MAXIMO TACAY, PONCIANO PANES and ANTONIA NOEL, petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM DAVAO DEL NORTE, BRANCHES 1 and 2, Presided by Hon. MARCIAL FERNANDEZ and Hon. JESUS MATAS, respectively, PATSITA GAMUTAN, Clerk of Court, and GODOFREDO PINEDA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Godofredo Pineda filed three separate actions for recovery of possession (acciones publicianas) against petitioners Maximo Tacay, Ponciano Panes, and Antonia Noel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum. The complaints uniformly alleged Pineda’s ownership of a parcel of land, the defendants’ occupation by mere tolerance, his demands to vacate, and their refusal. The prayers sought declarations of ownership, orders to vacate, and awards for monthly rentals, actual, moral, and nominal damages, and attorney’s fees. However, the complaints did not specify the exact amounts being claimed for actual, moral, and nominal damages, though a handwritten notation attempted to specify P5,000 for actual damages.
The petitioners filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction because the complaints violated Supreme Court Circular No. 7 (dated March 24, 1988) by not specifying all amounts of damages claimed. The respondent judges denied the motions to dismiss but ordered the expunction of the unspecified claims for moral, nominal, and actual damages from the complaints. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a joint petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, contending that the failure to specify damage amounts was a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal, not mere expunction.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the actions for recovery of possession despite the complaints’ failure to specify the exact amounts claimed for actual, moral, and nominal damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that the respondent judges correctly applied the law and did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The actions were fundamentally real actions for recovery of possession (accion publiciana), not actions for the recovery of a sum of money. Jurisdiction over such real actions is determined by the nature of the action itself and the assessed value of the property, not by the amount of ancillary damages claimed. Since the complaints were properly filed as real actions and the prescribed filing fees for such actions were paid, the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the principal cause of action.
The lack of specification for the amounts of actual, moral, and nominal damages did not divest the court of its jurisdiction over the main case. The proper remedy for such a procedural defect is not dismissal but the expunction of those unspecified damage claims, which is precisely what the respondent judges ordered. Alternatively, the court could allow an amendment to specify the amounts and pay corresponding fees within the prescriptive period. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction, once acquired over the principal action, is not lost due to ancillary claims with procedural deficiencies. The petition also failed procedurally for non-compliance with certification requirements under Circular No. 1-88.