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)

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 land executed by and among the respondents whereby respondents divided
the property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who are entitled thereto as legal heirs also.

Petitioners filed a complaint, denominated “DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION” against defendants with the
RTC claiming that the document was false and perjurious as the private respondents were not the only heirs and that 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 action is incapable of pecuniary estimation

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
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).

The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the document in question. While the
complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration
of nullity of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.

RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs HON. PABLO C. FORMARAN III

G.R. No. 175914, February 10, 2009

Petitioner obtained a loan P95,700,620.00 from respondents Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) and Roberto L. Obiedo (Obiedo),
secured by real estate mortgages over five parcels of land. When petitioner was unable to pay the loan when it
became due and demandable, respondents Tan and Obiedo agreed to an extension of the same. In a Memorandum
of Agreement respondents Tan and Obiedo granted petitioner until 31 December 2005 to settle its indebtedness,
and condoned the interests, penalties and surcharges accruing thereon from 1 October 2004 to 31 December
2005 which amounted to P74,678,647.00.

Without payment having been made by petitioner on 31 December 2005, respondents Tan and Obiedo
presented the Deeds of Absolute Sale dated 3 January 2006 before the Register of Deeds. They were able to secure
TCTs over the five parcels of land in their names. Petitioner filed before the RTC a Complaint] against respondents
Tan, Obiedo, and Atty. Reyes, for declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages. Petitioner alleged that
despite the ongoing meetings, respondents Tan and Obiedo, in evident bad faith, already had the pre-executed
Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized on 3 January 2006 by respondent Atty. Reyes. Atty. Reyes, in connivance with
respondents Tan and Obiedo, falsely made it appear in the Deeds of Absolute Sale that Mr. Sia had personally
acknowledged/ratified the said Deeds before Atty. Reyes(1st action)and Tan and Obiedo forcibly took over, with the
use of armed men, possession of the five parcels of land subject of the falsified Deeds of Absolute Sale and fenced
the said properties with barbed wire (2nd action). RTC issued an Order granting respondent Tans Omnibus
Motion. In holding that both petitioner and respondent Tan must pay docket fees in accordance
with Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court1. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
however denied by the CA and subsequently a petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: WON the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
Ruling: No. No matter how fastidiously petitioner attempts to conceal them, the allegations
and reliefs it sought in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 2006-0030 appears to be ultimately a real
action, involving as they do the recovery by petitioner of its title to and possession of the five
parcels of land from respondents Tan and Obiedo. A real action2 is one in which the plaintiff seeks
the recovery of real property; or, as indicated in what is now Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of
Court, a real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property.

1 It must be noted that under paragraph (b) 2. of the said Section 7, it is provided that QUIETING OF TITLE which is
an action classified as beyond pecuniary estimation shall be governed by paragraph (a). Hence, the filing fee in an action for
Declaration of Nullity of Deed which is also classified as beyond pecuniary estimation, must be computed based on the provision
of Section 7(A) herein-above, in part, quoted.

Since [herein respondent], Romeo Tan in his Answer has a counterclaim against the plaintiff, the former must likewise
pay the necessary filling (sic) fees as provided for under Section 7 (A) of Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 issued
by the Supreme Court.
 A real action indisputably involves real property. The docket fees for a real action would still be determined in
accordance with the value of the real property involved therein; the only difference is in

WHEN A CASE IS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

VILLENA vs Payoyo

Patricio Payoyo and Novaline, Inc., through its president, petitioner Patricio Villena, entered
into a contract for the delivery and installation of kitchen cabinets and home appliances
in Payoyos residence which were to be delivered within ninety days from downpayment of
50% of the purchase price. However, Villena failed to install the kitchen cabinets and deliver
the appliances. Payoyo demanded the cancellation of the contracts and refund in full the
downpayment. Payoyo filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages
against Villena. Villena moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. He
argued that there was no ground to cancel the contract; thus, there was no basis for
refund. The trial court denied his motion. Villena thereafter filed an answer with compulsory
counterclaim citing as an affirmative defense Payoyos failure to state a cause of action.
The trial court decided in favor of Payoyo, reasoning that the power to rescind is implied in reciprocal obligations which
was also affirmed by the CA.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE.

A case for breach of contract is a cause of action either for specific performance or rescission of contracts. An action for
rescission of contract, as a counterpart of an action for specific performance, is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and
therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. In the present case, the averments in the complaint show that Payoyo
sought the cancellation of the contracts and refund of the downpayments since Villena failed to comply with the
obligation to deliver the appliances and install the kitchen cabinets subject of the contracts. The court then must
examine the facts and the applicable law to determine whether there is in fact substantial breach that would warrant
rescission or cancellation of the contracts and entitle the respondent for a refund. While the respondent prayed for the
refund, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the rescission or cancellation of the contracts.

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES vs COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 136109; August 1, 2002

Manuel Dulawon filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25, a complaint for breach of contract of
lease with damages against petitioner Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI).

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction contending that it is the Municipal Trial Court
which has jurisdiction as the complaint is basically one for collection of unpaid rentals in the sum of P84,000.00, which
does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of P100,000.00 for Regional Trial Courts which was however denied thus
caused him to go to CA on a petition for certiorari which was also denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by private respondent.

Ruling: n Russell, et al. v. Vestil, et al., the Court held that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter
of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be
ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the 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, the action is one where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated
in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by Regional Trial Courts. Radio Communications of the
Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 386 SCRA 67, G.R. No. 136109 August 1, 2002

It is settled that a breach of contract is a cause of action either for specific performance or rescission of contracts. In
Manufacturer’s Distributors, Inc. v. Siu Liong, the Court held that actions for specific performance are incapable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

Meaning of Assessed Value

CESAR T. HILARIO vs HEIRS OF SALUSTIANO SALVADOR
G.R. No. 160384. April 29, 2005
Cesar, Ibarra, Nestor, Lina and Prescilla, all surnamed Hilario, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Romblon alleging that heirs of Salvador constructed dwelling unit on the property of plaintiffs’ father
and to reach a possible amicable settlement, they brought the matter to the Lupon of Barangay Sawang for
actual, moral, exemplary damages and other remedies and relief. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action, citing Section 33 of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended by Section 3(3) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691 because of failure to
state assessed value of the land in dispute and does not sufficiently identify and/or describe the
parcel of land referred to as the subject-matter. Petitioners averred that RTC had jurisdiction over
the action since the court can take judicial notice of the market value of the property in question the total value
thereof is P3,500,000.00.. RTC held that action was incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore,
cognizable by the RTC as provided in Section 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. RTC rendered judgement in
favor of the petitioner causing the respondents to appeal in the CA which reversed the ruling of the RTC and
declared that the action of the petitioners was one for the recovery of ownership and possession of real
property. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) had exclusive jurisdiction over the action, conformably to Section 33 of R.A. No. 7691.

Issue: whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners

Ruling: We find and so rule that the action of the petitioners was an accion publiciana, or one for the recovery
of possession of the real property subject matter thereof. An accion reinvindicatoria is a suit which has for its
object the recovery of possession over the real property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership and
possession based on the said ownership. On the other hand, an accion publicianais one for the recovery of
possession of the right to possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one
year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.

The jurisdiction of the court over an action involving title to or possession of land is now determined by the assessed
value of the said property and not the market value thereof. The assessed value of real property is the fair market value
of the real property multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. The fair market value is the
price at which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not
compelled to buy. Even a cursory reading of the complaint will show that it does not contain an allegation stating the
assessed value of the property subject of the complaint. The court cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market
value of lands. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot thus be
determined whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action.
Contract of Marriage and Marital relations

Tamano vs Ortiz

G.R. No. 126603. June 29, 1998

Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano (Tamano) married private respondent Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano
(Zorayda) in civil rites. Their marriage supposedly remained valid and subsisting until his death. Prior to his
death, Tamano also married petitioner Estrellita J. Tamano (Estrellita) in civil rites. private respondent Zorayda
filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Tamano and Estrellita on the ground that it was
bigamous. They contended that Tamano and Estrellita misrepresented themselves as divorced and single,
respectively, thus making the entries in the marriage contractfalse and fraudulent. Estrellita filed a motion to
dismiss alleging that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City was without jurisdiction over the subject and
nature of the action. She alleged that "only a party to the marriage" could file an action for annulment of
marriage against the other spouse, it was only Tamano who could file an action for annulment of their
marriage. Petitioner likewise contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were both Muslims and married in
Muslim rites the jurisdiction to hear and try the instant case was vested in the sharia courts pursuant to Art. 155
of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.RTC denied motion to dismiss on the ground that Estrellita and Tamano
were married in accordance with the Civil Code and not exclusively in accordance with PD No. 1083[2] or
the Code of Muslim Personal laws.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the instant case would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of sharia courts only
when filed in places where there are sharia courts. But in places where there are no sharia courts, like Quezon
City, the instant case could properly be filed before the Regional Trial Court.

Issue:WON sharia court and not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the
action

Ruling: Under The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over all actions involving
the contract of marriage and marital relations. Personal actions, such as the instant complaint for declaration of nullity
of marriage, may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff. There should be no question by now
that what determines the nature of an action and correspondingly the court which has jurisdiction over it are the
allegations made by the plaintiff in this case. In the complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by private
respondents herein, it was alleged that Estrellita and Tamano were married in accordance with the provisions of the Civil
Code. Never was it mentioned that Estrellita and Tamano were married under Muslim laws or P.D. No. 1083.
Interestingly, Estrellita never stated in her Motion to Dismiss that she and Tamano were married under Muslim laws.
That she was in fact married to Tamano under Muslim laws was first mentioned only in her Motion for Reconsideration.
This is because a court’s jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to
dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the complaint. Tamano vs. Ortiz, 291 SCRA
584, G.R. No. 126603 June 29, 1998