G.R. No. L-41430 February 19, 1979
ANGEL BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. MATILDE LIM for and in behalf of the Intestate Estate of Pedro Lira, and Hon. MOISES F. DALISAY, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch V, respondents.

FACTS

Matilde Lim, as administratrix of her husband’s estate, filed a complaint against Angel Bautista for rescission of contract, annulment of a deed of sale, and reconveyance of a twenty-hectare land allegedly fictitiously sold to him. She paid only thirty-two pesos (P32) as docket fee. Judge Eduardo Tutaan, noting her allegation that the land was valued at five million pesos, ordered her to pay a deficiency docket fee of P9,818. Unable to pay, the fee was constituted as a government lien on the litigated properties. Bautista later moved to dismiss the case for non-payment of this fee.
Judge Moises Dalisay subsequently modified this order, reclassifying the case as one for rescission or annulment of contract—a suit not susceptible of pecuniary estimation—and fixed the total docket fee at two hundred pesos (P200). He directed Lim to pay the balance of P168, which she paid. Bautista then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, seeking annulment of both judges’ orders and dismissal of the case, arguing non-payment of the proper docket fee deprived the lower court of jurisdiction. While this incident was pending, the parties submitted a compromise agreement to settle the main case.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 246 despite the initial payment of only P32 as docket fee, and whether the Supreme Court should approve the parties’ compromise agreement.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed Bautista’s petition, upholding Judge Dalisay’s order. The Court ruled that the action was essentially for rescission or annulment of contract, which is an action not susceptible of pecuniary estimation under the rules. For such actions, the fixed docket fee is P200. Since Lim paid this amount, the docket fee was fully paid, and jurisdiction was properly vested in the lower court. The Court clarified that the rule making the date of payment the filing date did not apply because an initial fee was paid, distinguishing it from cases where no fee was paid at all.
The Court rejected Bautista’s argument that the fee should be based on the alleged market value of P5 million, noting that for real estate, the assessed value—approximately P24,000 in this case—is the basis for computation, not the speculative market value. The Court also viewed Bautista’s jurisdictional challenge as a dilatory tactic, raised only after pre-trial, and noted his submission of a compromise agreement impliedly abandoned his petition. Regarding the compromise, the Court held it pertained to the merits of the main case and thus should be submitted to and approved by the lower court, not the Supreme Court, which was only resolving the incidental matter of the docket fee.