MONTERO V. MONTERO, G.R. NO.

217755, SEPTEMBER 18, 2019;

FACTS

Petitioner filed a complaint for for Declaration of Nullity of Affidavit of Adjudication,5 Cancellation of Tax
Declaration, Reconveyance, and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of
Bangued against respondent Montero and others.

Dominga Taeza [(Dominga)] was the second legal wife of Jose Montero. Their children were Alfredo,
Pacita, Marcela, and Ernesto. Dominga had one illegitimate son, Federico Taeza. Petitioner [Elmer] was a
surviving heir of Alfredo Montero.

[Dominga] died intestate and left a parcel of land. Different tax declarations in Dominga's name also
showed that she was in actual possession of the land.

Sometime in 1993, when [petitioner Elmer] was about to pay the real estate tax on the property, he was
informed by the Assessors' Office, that the same was already transferred in the name of [respondent
Santiago] by virtue of an Affidavit of Adjudication upon the latter's misrepresentation that [respondent
Santiago] was an only heir of his father Santiago Montero, Sr.

By virtue of the Affidavit of Adjudication, Tax Declaration No. 417 in [Dominga's] name was cancelled by
Tax Declaration No. 5289 in [respondent Santiago's] name. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P- 14452
covering the land was also issued in the latter's name.

It bears stressing that under Sections 19 and 33 of BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, both the first-level
courts and the second-level courts exercise original jurisdiction over actions involving title to or
possession of real property or any interest therein; however, it is the assessed value of the realty
involved that points out which court shall acquire exclusive jurisdiction over a real action, as in the case.

The law is explicit that the jurisdiction of the court in real actions is determiined by its assessed value,
which "contemplates a more conservative and stable method of valuation that is based on a standard
mechanism (multiplying the fair market value by the assessment level) conducted by the local
assessors."

Thus, for failure of pet1t1oner-spouses to reflect the assessed value of the mortgage properties in the
complaint, or in the annexes thereto, the dismissal of the instant case is in order.
Respondents Santiago and Charlie filed a Motion to Dismiss,8 alleging that the Regional Trial Court had
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint based on the following grounds:

Under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, regional trial courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over civil action involving title to, or possession of, real property where the assessed value of
the property involved exceeds P20,000.00, or in Metro x x x Manila, where the value exceeds
P50,000.00, except actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer.

Where the assessed value of the real property does not exceed P20,000.00, or P50,000.00 in Metro
Manila, exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Trial Courts, pursuant to Section 33 of BP 129.

As alleged in the complaint, the assessed value of the property is P3,010.00[,] an amount not exceeding
P20,000.00., thus, exclusive original jurisdiction over the case is vested with the Municipal Trial Court.

[Petitioner Elmer] filed his Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss arguing that the principal
action is incapable of pecuniary estimation, thus, falling within the jurisdiction of the [RTC].

The trial court denied [respondents'] motion to dismiss. [The respondents'] motion for
reconsideration11 was also denied under [the RTC's] Order

Respondents Santiago and Charlie filed their Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rule 65
Petition), alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their Motion to Dismiss.

In the assailed Decision, the CA granted the respondents' Rule 65 Petition. In sum, the CA held that
"[t]he present action, therefore, is not mainly about the declaration of nullity of [the respondents']
affidavit of adjudication or the title they obtained based on said affidavit. The primary issue for
resolution is who between the contending parties is the lawful owner of the land, and thus, entitled to
its possession. The action is, therefore, one that involves title to, or possession of, real property,
jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of the property in question

The CA further found that "it is undisputed that the assessed value of the property in question is
P3,010.00, an amount not exceeding P20,000.00. Based on [Section 19 of Batas Pambansa No. (BP) 129
or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the] jurisdiction over the instant case is with the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, as the case may be.
Undeniably, the [RTC] does not have jurisdiction over the case and thus, erred in denying [the
respondents'] motion to dismiss based on this ground."17

Petitioner Elmer filed his Motion for Reconsideration18 dated January 5, 2015, which was denied by the
CA in the assailed Resolution.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Whether the subject matter of petitioner Elmer's Complaint involve the title to, possession of, or interest
in real property, or is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

RULING

Yes. The instant Petition is unmeritorious. Petitioner Elmer's Complaint involves the title to, possession
of, and interest in real property, i.e., the subject property, which indisputably has an assessed value of
below P20,000.00. Hence, the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear case.

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for
the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire,
among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter.

According to BP 129, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7691, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have 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 P20,000.00 or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such assessed value does not exceed P50,000.00.20 On the other hand, in all civil actions in which
the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the Regional Trial Courts shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction.

Jurisprudence has held that an action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiffs cause of
action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal rights to have exclusive
control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same.22

In connection with the foregoing, it is a hornbook doctrine that a court's jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a particular action is determined by the plaintiffs allegations in the complaint and the
principal relief he seeks in the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts.23

Hence, the Court has held that even if the action is supposedly one for annulment of a deed, 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 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.

Applying the foregoing in the instant case, the Complaint itself unequivocally states that petitioner
Elmer, by filing the said Complaint, seeks to compel respondents Santiago and Charlie "to respect
the right of ownership and possession over the land in question by the heirs of [Dominga.]
In fact, in the instant Petition, petitioner Elmer himself declares that "the narration on the complaint
would show that the petitioner was only establishing his rightful ownership over the subject property."

Simply stated, at the heart of petitioner Elmer's Complaint is his assertion of the right of ownership and
possession over the subject property as against respondents Santiago and Charlie. Primarily, petitioner
Elmer seeks to establish and confirm his supposed "rightful ownership" over the subject property.

In upholding the RTC's dismissal of the action due to lack of jurisdiction, the Court therein explained that
"title" is different from a "certificate of title" which is the document of ownership under the Torrens
system of registration issued by the government through the Register of Deeds. While "title" gives the
owner the right to demand or be issued a "certificate of title," the holder of a certificate of title does not
necessarily possess valid title to the real property. The issuance of a certificate of title does not give the
owner any better title than what he actually has in law. Therefore, a plaintiffs action for cancellation or
nullification of a certificate of title may only be a necessary consequence of establishing that the
defendant lacks title to real property