Malana v Tappa
FACTS:
Petitioners filed before the RTC an action for reinvincatoria, quieting of title and damages against
respondents. Petitioners alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land occupied by respondents.
Allegedly, petitioners inherited the subject property from Anastacio Danao, who allowed Consuelo Pauig
to build on and occupy the southern portion of the subject property. Anastacio and Consuelo agreed that
the latter would vacate the said land at any time that Anastacio and his heirs might need it. Petitioners
claimed that respondents, Consuelo's family members, continued to occupy the subject property even
after her death, already building their residences thereon using permanent materials.
Petitioners referred their land dispute with respondents to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay
Annafunan West for conciliation during which respondents presented documents for their claim of
ownership.
Petitioners were compelled to file before the RTC a Complaint to remove such cloud from their title.
Petitioners additionally sought in their Complaint an award against respondents for actual damages, in the
amount of P50,000.00, resulting from the latter's baseless claim over the subject property that did not
actually belong to them, in violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code on Human Relations.
Before respondents could file their answer, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The RTC referred to Republic Act No. 7691, which vests the RTC with jurisdiction over real
actions, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000.00. It found that the subject
property had a value of less than P20,000.00; hence, petitioners' action to recover the same was outside
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Petitioners argued that their principal cause of action was for quieting of title; the accion reivindicacion
was included merely to enable them to seek complete relief from respondents. Petitioner's Complaint
should not have been dismissed, since Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court 13 states that an action to
quiet title falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. RTC denied and ruled that an action to quiet title is a real
action. It is the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over real actions where
the assessed value of real property does not exceed P20,000.00. Since the assessed value of subject
property per Tax Declaration was P410.00, the real action involving the same was outside the jurisdiction
of the RTC.
The RTC differentiated between the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of
Court. The first paragraph refers to an action for declaratory relief, which should be brought before the
RTC. The second paragraph, however, refers to a different set of remedies, which includes an action to
quiet title to real property. The second paragraph must be read in relation to Republic Act No. 7691, which
vests the MTC with jurisdiction over real actions, where the assessed value of the real property involved
does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila and P20,000.00 in all other places.
ISSUE: Whether the complaint filed by petitioner should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING: YES.
An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or
other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an
ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity
of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties thereunder.
Petitions for declaratory relief are governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The RTC correctly made a
distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, describes the general circumstances in
which a person may file a petition for declaratory relief.
The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court specifically refers to (1) an action for
the reformation of an instrument, recognized under Articles 1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code; (2) an action
to quiet title, authorized by Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and (3) an action to consolidate
ownership required by Article 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with a right to repurchase. These three
remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief because they also result in the adjudication of the
legal rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into effect.
To determine which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in the second paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be read together with those of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended.
It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an
action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word "may" — that an action for
quieting of title "may be brought under [the] Rule" on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person desiring
to file a petition for declaratory relief "may . . . bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court". The
use of the word "may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere
possibility, an opportunity or an option. In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word "shall" and explicitly requires the MTC to
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real
property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00.
As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration No. 02-
48386 is only P410.00; therefore, petitioners' Complaint involving title to and possession of the said
property is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC.
Furthermore, an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the
instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an action for declaratory relief is
to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or
contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues
arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the
statute, deed, or contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for
ending controversies that have not reached the state where another relief is immediately available; and
supplies the need for a form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of
obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs.
Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory
relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no more
jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed
before the institution of the action.
In the present case, petitioners' Complaint for quieting of title was filed after petitioners already demanded
and respondents refused to vacate the subject property. Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that
they had already been deprived of the possession of their property, the proper remedy for them is the
filing of an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief. An accion
publiciana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed one year after the occurrence of the cause of
action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. An accion reivindicatoria is a suit that
has for its object one's recovery of possession over the real property as owner.