G.R. No. 122646 March 14, 1997
ADELIA C. MENDOZA, for herself and Administratix of the Intestate Estate of the late NORBERTO B. MENDOZA, petitioners, vs. HON. ANGELITO C. TEH, Presiding Judge, Branch 87, RTC, Rosario, Batangas, SPS. HERMINIO & CLARITA TAYAG @ SPS. GEORGE T. TIGLAO & CLARIZZA T. TIGLAO and/or @ TEOFILO M. ESGUERRA, LEONOR M. ESGUERRA. LETICIA M. ESGUERRA, JOEL M. ESGUERRA, RICARDO M. ESGUERRA, VOLTAIRE E. TAYAG, BENITO I. TAYAG, MERLIE MALIG, ALBERTO T. TAYAG, ROSEMARIE T. TAYAG, LETICIA E. LULU and the REGISTER OF DEED for the Province of Batangas, respondents.
FRANCISCO, J.:
FACTS:
On October 28, 1994, petitioner "for herself and as administratrix of the intestate estate" of her deceased husband Norberto Mendoza filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas a complaint for "reconveyance of title (involving parcels of lot in Batangas) and damages with petition for preliminary injunction"
Private respondents filed on January 21, 1995 their "answer with motion to dismiss" alleging among others that the complaint states no cause of action and that petitioner's demand had already been paid. On February 17, 1995, private respondents filed another pleading entitled "motion to dismiss" invoking, this time, lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, estoppel, laches and prescription. In support of their argument of lack of jurisdiction, private respondents contend that a special proceedings case for appointment of administratrix of an estate cannot be incorporated in the ordinary action for reconveyance.
In her opposition to the motions, petitioner asserts among others, that the allegation seeking appointment as administratrix is only an incidental matter which is not even
ADELIA C. MENDOZA, for herself and Administratix of the Intestate Estate of the late NORBERTO B. MENDOZA, petitioners, vs. HON. ANGELITO C. TEH, Presiding Judge, Branch 87, RTC, Rosario, Batangas, SPS. HERMINIO & CLARITA TAYAG @ SPS. GEORGE T. TIGLAO & CLARIZZA T. TIGLAO and/or @ TEOFILO M. ESGUERRA, LEONOR M. ESGUERRA. LETICIA M. ESGUERRA, JOEL M. ESGUERRA, RICARDO M. ESGUERRA, VOLTAIRE E. TAYAG, BENITO I. TAYAG, MERLIE MALIG, ALBERTO T. TAYAG, ROSEMARIE T. TAYAG, LETICIA E. LULU and the REGISTER OF DEED for the Province of Batangas, respondents.
FRANCISCO, J.:
FACTS:
On October 28, 1994, petitioner "for herself and as administratrix of the intestate estate" of her deceased husband Norberto Mendoza filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas a complaint for "reconveyance of title (involving parcels of lot in Batangas) and damages with petition for preliminary injunction"
Private respondents filed on January 21, 1995 their "answer with motion to dismiss" alleging among others that the complaint states no cause of action and that petitioner's demand had already been paid. On February 17, 1995, private respondents filed another pleading entitled "motion to dismiss" invoking, this time, lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, estoppel, laches and prescription. In support of their argument of lack of jurisdiction, private respondents contend that a special proceedings case for appointment of administratrix of an estate cannot be incorporated in the ordinary action for reconveyance.
In her opposition to the motions, petitioner asserts among others, that the allegation seeking appointment as administratrix is only an incidental matter which is not even
prayed for in the complaint.
Replying to the opposition, private respondents argued that since petitioner's husband resided in Quezon City at the time of his death, the appointment of the estate administratrix should be filed in the RTC of that place in accordance with Section 1 Rule 73 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, it is their argument that the RTC of Batangas has no jurisdiction over the case.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*RTC-Batangas: "dismissed without prejudice" the complaint for lack of jurisdiction "on the ground that the rules governing an ordinary civil action and a special proceeding are different."
*RTC (motion for reconsideration): denied
he filed this petition under Rule 45 on pure questions of law. The Court thereafter gave due course to the petition.
ISSUE:
whether or not in an action for reconveyance, an allegation seeking appointment as administratrix of an estate, would oust the RTC of its jurisdiction over the whole case?
RULING:
NO.
1. THE LAWS PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
The above law is clear.
a. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE. An action for reconveyance, which involves title to property worth millions of pesos, such as the lots subject of this case, is cognizable by the RTC.
b. INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION. Likewise falling within its jurisdiction are actions "incapable of pecuniary estimation," such as the appointment of an administratrix for an estate. c. GRANTING OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. Even the Rules on venue of estate proceedings (Section 1 of Rule 73 7) impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of the RTC over petitions for granting of letters of administration.
d. PROBATE PROCEEDINGS (depending on net worth). On the other hand, probate proceedings for the settlement of estate are within the ambit of either the RTC or MTC depending on the net worth of the estate. By arguing that the allegation seeking such appointment as administratrix ousted the RTC of its jurisdiction, both public and private respondents confuse jurisdiction with venue. Section 2 of Rule 4 as revised by Circular 13-95 8 provides that actions involving title to property shall be tried in the province where the property is located, in this case, — Batangas.
e. DO NOT CONFUSE VENUE WITH JURISDICTION. The mere fact that petitioner's deceased husband resides in Quezon City at the time of his death affects only the venue but not the jurisdiction of the Court.
Section 19 of B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7691 provides:
Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
Replying to the opposition, private respondents argued that since petitioner's husband resided in Quezon City at the time of his death, the appointment of the estate administratrix should be filed in the RTC of that place in accordance with Section 1 Rule 73 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, it is their argument that the RTC of Batangas has no jurisdiction over the case.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*RTC-Batangas: "dismissed without prejudice" the complaint for lack of jurisdiction "on the ground that the rules governing an ordinary civil action and a special proceeding are different."
*RTC (motion for reconsideration): denied
he filed this petition under Rule 45 on pure questions of law. The Court thereafter gave due course to the petition.
ISSUE:
whether or not in an action for reconveyance, an allegation seeking appointment as administratrix of an estate, would oust the RTC of its jurisdiction over the whole case?
RULING:
NO.
1. THE LAWS PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
The above law is clear.
a. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE. An action for reconveyance, which involves title to property worth millions of pesos, such as the lots subject of this case, is cognizable by the RTC.
b. INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION. Likewise falling within its jurisdiction are actions "incapable of pecuniary estimation," such as the appointment of an administratrix for an estate. c. GRANTING OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. Even the Rules on venue of estate proceedings (Section 1 of Rule 73 7) impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of the RTC over petitions for granting of letters of administration.
d. PROBATE PROCEEDINGS (depending on net worth). On the other hand, probate proceedings for the settlement of estate are within the ambit of either the RTC or MTC depending on the net worth of the estate. By arguing that the allegation seeking such appointment as administratrix ousted the RTC of its jurisdiction, both public and private respondents confuse jurisdiction with venue. Section 2 of Rule 4 as revised by Circular 13-95 8 provides that actions involving title to property shall be tried in the province where the property is located, in this case, — Batangas.
e. DO NOT CONFUSE VENUE WITH JURISDICTION. The mere fact that petitioner's deceased husband resides in Quezon City at the time of his death affects only the venue but not the jurisdiction of the Court.
Section 19 of B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7691 provides:
Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). . .
xxx xxx xxx
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestat . . . .
Likewise, Section 33 of the same law provides that:
Metropolitan Trial Court shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate . . .
2. the cases cited by private respondents are not at point as they involve settlement of estate where the probate court was asked to resolve questions of ownership of certain properties.In the present suit, no settlement of estate is involved, but merely an allegation seeking appointment as estate administratrix which does not necessarily involve settlement of estate that would have invited the exercise of the limited jurisdiction of a probate court.
3. jurisprudential rulings that a probate court cannot generally decide questions of ownership or title to property is not applicable in this case, because: there is no settlement of estate involved and the RTC of Batangas was not acting as a probate court. It should be clarified that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction, is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure
DISPOSITIVE:
trial court is ordered to immediately proceed with the disposition of the case in accordance with the SC Decision.
OTHER NOTES:
judges should not dismiss with precipitate haste, complaints or petitions filed before them, just so they can comply with their administrative duty to dispose cases within 90 days at the expense of their judicial responsibility.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). . .
xxx xxx xxx
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestat . . . .
Likewise, Section 33 of the same law provides that:
Metropolitan Trial Court shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate . . .
2. the cases cited by private respondents are not at point as they involve settlement of estate where the probate court was asked to resolve questions of ownership of certain properties.In the present suit, no settlement of estate is involved, but merely an allegation seeking appointment as estate administratrix which does not necessarily involve settlement of estate that would have invited the exercise of the limited jurisdiction of a probate court.
3. jurisprudential rulings that a probate court cannot generally decide questions of ownership or title to property is not applicable in this case, because: there is no settlement of estate involved and the RTC of Batangas was not acting as a probate court. It should be clarified that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction, is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure
DISPOSITIVE:
trial court is ordered to immediately proceed with the disposition of the case in accordance with the SC Decision.
OTHER NOTES:
judges should not dismiss with precipitate haste, complaints or petitions filed before them, just so they can comply with their administrative duty to dispose cases within 90 days at the expense of their judicial responsibility.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment