Raymundo v.

CA, 213 SCRA 457 (1992):

GR 97805

ISSUE:
WON the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.

FACTS:
HELD:
Petioner, Nilo Raymundo is an owner/occupant of the Galleria de Magallanes
Condominium. The Admin of said condominium discovered that Raymundo made
an unauthorized installation of glasses at the balcony of his unit which is
considered a violation of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restriction of the
Corporation.
The admin reported said violation to the BOD. A letter was sent for the removal of
the illegal and unauthorized unstllation of glasses.
Petitioner refused.
Repondent Galleria de Magallanes Assoc. filed a complaint for mandatory
injunction against Raymundo at the RTC.
Raymundo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that:
1.

RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since a complaint for mandatory
injuction is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.

2.

that the pecuniary claim of the complaint was only attorney's fees of
P10,000, hence, the MTC had jurisdiction

RTC: Denied the motion and rendered decision in favor of Magallanes Assoc.
CA: likewise dismissed petitioners petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining order and
preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the decision of the CA.

The SC held that RTC has jurisdiction bec. an action to remove the illegal and
unauthorized installation of glasses at a condominium unit is not capable of
pecuniary estimation and falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable
of pecuniary estimation, the criterion is first to ascertain the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought.
A claim of attorneys fees is only incidental to its principal cause of action and
therefore not determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.
If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the MTC or in the
RTC would depend on the amount of the claim.
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, the subject of the litigation may not be
estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC.

Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738; GR No. 119347, March 17, 1999
(Civil Procedures Jurisdiction; Civil actions in which the subject of the litigation
is incapable of pecuniary estimation)

basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where
the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively
by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).

Facts: Petitioners discovered a public document, which is a declaration of heirs

and deed of confirmation of a previous oral agreement, of partition, affecting the

The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void

land executed by and among the respondents whereby respondents divided the

the document in question. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the

property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are entitled thereto

property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity

as legal heirs also.

of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject

Petitioners filed a complaint, denominated DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND

matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the

PARTITION against defendants with the RTC claiming that the document was

complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the

false and perjurious as the private respondents were not the only heirs and that

plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.

no oral partition of the property whatsoever had been made between the
heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be declared null and void and an
order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs.
Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the
subject land is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
MTC.
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the RTC has
jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as amended.
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the nature of the civil case.
Held: Yes. The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is one incapable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court.
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, the Supreme Court ruled that:
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable
of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining
the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of
first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the