SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469 12/1/19, 12:07 PM
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 409
Barangay Piapi vs. Talip
*
G.R. No. 138248. September 7, 2005.
BARANGAY PIAPI, herein represented by its chairman
ANDRES L. LUGNASIN and LIBERATO LARGO, RITA
LARGO, SABAS MONTECALBO, SR., CARLOS ZAMORA,
DONATA SESICAN, DIZAR CASTILLO, ALEJANDOR
GICALE, SALVACION SALE, PABLO MORASTIL, JOSE
JAVELOSA, ISIDRA BERNAL, FELIX EGHOT, CORAZON
EGHOT, ROSALINA REMONDE, ROA EGHOT,
CEFERINA LAGROSA, MARIO ARANEZ, ALBERTO
CAMARILLO, BOBBY DULAOTO, NOEL ZAMORA,
MARTINO MORALLAS, DANILO FAILAGA, MARITA
BRAGAT, NATIVIDAD LAGRAMON, RAQUEL
GEROZAGA, SHIRLY CESAR, PIO ZAMORA, ANDRES
LUGNASIN, ELPIDIO SESICAN, CRESENTA BORJA,
CARLITO TANEZA, JR., MARCIAL RELLON,
JEANILITO SUMALINOG, ALBERTO ZAMORA, and
LUISITO LAGROSA, petitioners, vs. IGNACIO TALIP
representing the HEIRS OF JUAN JAYAG, respondent.
Remedial Law; Actions; Jurisdictions; Where the ultimate
objective of the plaintiffs, like petitioners herein, is to obtain title to
real property, it should be filed in the proper court having
jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof.
·The contention is bereft of merit. This case is analogous to
Huguete vs. Embudo. There, petitioners argued that a complaint for
annulment of a deed of sale and partition is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and thus
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
410
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
[Link] Page 1 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469 12/1/19, 12:07 PM
Barangay Piapi vs. Talip
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. However, we ruled
that „the nature of an action is not determined by what is stated in
the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the complaint
and the reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate objective of the
plaintiffs, like petitioners herein, is to obtain title to real property, it
should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the
assessed value of the property subject thereof.‰
Same; Same; Same; The nature of an action as well as which
court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of
the claims asserted therein.·Basic as a hornbook principle is that
the nature of an action, as well as which court or body has
jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations
contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein.
Same; Same; Same; Section 19 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
as amended, requires that the „assessed value of the property or if
there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the
claimant.‰·The Rule requires that „the assessed value of the
property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof, shall be
alleged by the claimant.‰ It bears reiterating that what determines
jurisdiction is the allegations in the complaint and the reliefs
prayed for. PetitionersÊ complaint is for reconveyance of a parcel of
land. Considering that their action involves the title to or interest in
real property, they should have alleged therein its assessed value.
However, they only specified the market value or estimated value,
which is P15,000.00. Pursuant to the provision of Section 33 (3)
quoted earlier, it is the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Padada-
Kiblawan, Davao del Sur, not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over
the case.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the
Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, Br. 18.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Serafin S. Senajon, Jr. for petitioners.
Rizal A. Gierran for respondent.
411
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 411
Barangay Piapi vs. Talip
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
[Link] Page 2 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469 12/1/19, 12:07 PM
2 3
Orders dated January 12, 1999 and April 20, 1999 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Digos, Davao del
Sur in Civil Case No. 3715 filed by the above-named
petitioners against respondent Ignacio Talip representing
the heirs of Juan Jayag.
The factual antecedents as borne by the records are:
On August 28, 1998, petitioners filed with the said RTC
a complaint for reconveyance and damages with prayer for
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction against respondent, docketed as
Civil Case No. 3715.
The complaint alleges that petitioners and their
predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, peaceful,
continuous and open possession for more than 30 years of a
parcel of land consisting of 3.2 hectares situated in Piapi,
Padada, Davao del Sur. It is covered by Original Certificate
of Title (OCT) No. P-(3331)-4244 of the Registry of Deeds,
same province, issued in the name of Juan Jayag and has a
market value of P15,000.00. The same land was subdivided
into lots consisting of 100 square meters each, where the
individual petitioners built their houses. On the remaining
portion were constructed their barangay center, multi-
purpose gym and health center. Respondent fraudulently
obtained from the said Registry of Deeds a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in his name. In 1998, he paid real
estate taxes and subsequently, he threatened to build a
barb-wire fence around the land.
Instead of filing an answer, respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the case considering that the assessed
value of the land is
_______________
1 Pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 Annex „D,‰ Petition for Review, Rollo at pp. 30-31.
3 Annex „E,‰ Id., at p. 32.
412
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Barangay Piapi vs. Talip
only P6,030.00. Respondent, citing 4Section 33 (3) of BP Blg.
129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, maintains that the case
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Padada-Kiblawan, Davao del Sur.
In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioners
alleged that jurisdiction is vested in the RTC considering
that the total assessed value of the property is P41,890.00,
as shown by a Real Property Field Appraisal and
[Link] Page 3 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469 12/1/19, 12:07 PM
Assessment Sheet dated August 20, 1996 issued by Atty.
Marcos
5
D. Risonar, Jr., Provincial Assessor of Davao del
Sur.
On January 12, 1999, the trial court issued an Order
dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration but
was denied in an Order dated April 20, 1999.
Hence, petitioners directly filed with this Court the
instant petition for review on certiorari assailing the trial
courtÊs Order dismissing the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.
Petitioners contend that under Section 19 (1) of BP Blg.
129, as amended, the RTC has jurisdiction over the
complaint for reconveyance since it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
_______________
4 Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.·
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxx xxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneyÊs fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided,
That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots.‰
5 Rollo at p. 29.
413
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 413
Barangay Piapi vs. Talip
The contention is bereft 6
of merit. This case is analogous to
Huguete vs. Embudo. There, petitioners argued that a
complaint for annulment of a deed of sale and partition is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, and thus falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. However, we ruled that
„the nature of an action is not determined by what is stated
in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the
complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate
objective of the plaintiffs, like petitioners herein, is to obtain
title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court
having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property
[Link] Page 4 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469 12/1/19, 12:07 PM
subject thereof.‰
Indeed, basic as a hornbook principle is that the nature
of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction
over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in
the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled 7to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein.
Let us examine the pertinent allegations in petitionersÊ
complaint below:
„x x x xxx
2. Plaintiffs by themselves and/or thru their predecessors-
ininterest have been in actual possession, in the concept of an
owner, in good faith and in a manner that is open, peaceful,
uninterrupted, public, adverse and continuous, for more than 30
years, the following described parcel of land, viz.:
ÂA parcel of land containing an area of 3.2 hectares, more of less,
covered by OCT No. P-(3331)-4244, in the name of Juan Jayag and
situated in Piapi, Padada, Davao del Sur.Ê
2a. The market value of the above-described land is
Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).
_______________
6 G.R. No. 149554, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 273, 280.
7 Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. vs. Dimaculangan, G.R. No. 130991,
March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 376, 382, citing Intestate Estate of Alexander T. Ty
vs. Court of Appeals, 356 SCRA 661 (2001).
414
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Barangay Piapi vs. Talip
3. The respective areas that private plaintiffs occupy consisted
of an average of 100 square meters on which their homes
and houses are built while a large chunk of the above-
described property has been used or set aside for the
barangay site of and other infrastructures for Piapi,
Padada, Davao del Sur.
xxx xxx
5. Defendant or his predecessor-in-interest has never been in
possession, of the land in suit and except for the year 1998,
has not paid taxes thereon nor declared the same for
taxation purposes·a clear index that defendantÊs title over
the same is not genuine.
6. Defendant, in procuring title to the land in suit did so by
fraud, mistake and/or misrepresentation, hence, he holds
the title for the benefit and in trust of the landowner·that
is, herein plaintiffs.
[Link] Page 5 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469 12/1/19, 12:07 PM
7. Defendant is by law under obligation to reconvey the land in
suit in favor of herein plaintiffs, x x x.‰
It can easily be discerned that petitionersÊ complaint
involves title to, or possession of, real property. However,
they failed to allege therein the assessed value of the
subject property. Instead, what they stated is the market
value of the land at P15,000.00.
Section 19 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended
provides:
„SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.·Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest thereon, where
the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts.‰
415
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 415
Barangay Piapi vs. Talip
The Rule requires that „the assessed value of the property,
or if there is none, the estimated
8
value thereof, shall be
alleged by the claimant.‰ It bears reiterating that what
determines jurisdiction is the allegations in the complaint
and the reliefs prayed for. PetitionersÊ complaint is for
reconveyance of a parcel of land. Considering that their
action involves the title to or interest in real property, they
should have alleged therein its assessed value. However,
they only specified the market value or estimated value,
which is P15,000.00. Pursuant to the provision of Section
33 (3) quoted earlier, it is the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
of Padada-Kiblawan, Davao del Sur, not the RTC, which
has jurisdiction over the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
Orders dated January 12, 1999 and April 20, 1999 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Digos, Davao del Sur in
Civil Case No. 3715 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (Acting C.J., Chairman), Corona and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
[Link] Page 6 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469 12/1/19, 12:07 PM
Carpio-Morales, J., On Official Leave.
Petition denied, assailed orders affirmed.
Note.·Jurisdiction is determined by the averments in
the complaint (Perez vs. Cruz, 404 SCRA 487 [2003])
··o0o··
_______________
8 Section 7 (b), Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, cited in Serrano
vs. Delica, G.R. No. 136325, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 82, 88-89.
416
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
[Link] Page 7 of 7