SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA VS. LINDO
G.R. No. 208232, March 10, 2014
Facts:
Alfredo R. Bautista (Bautista), petitioner’s predecessor, inherited in 1983 a free-patent land located in Davao Oriental and covered by OCT No. (1572) P-6144.A few years later, he subdivided the property and sold it to several vendees, herein respondents, via a notarized deed of absolute sale dated May 30, 1991. Two months later, OCT No.(1572) P-6144 was canceled and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in favor of the vendees.
On August 1994, Bautista filed a complaint for repurchase against respondents before the RTC, anchoring his cause of action on Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141, otherwise known as the “Public Land Act,” which reads:
“SECTION 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance.”
During the pendency of the action, Bautista died and was substituted by petitioner, Efipania. Respondents, Sps. Lindo entered into a compromise agreement with petitioners, whereby they agree to cede to Epifania 3,230 sq.m..portion of the property as well as to waive, abandon, surrender, and withdraw all claims and counterclaims against each other. RTC approve the compromise agreement on January 2011.
Other respondents, filed a Motion to Dismissed on February 2013 alleging lack of jurisdiction of the RTC on the ground that the complaint failed to state the value of the property sought to be recovered and alleges that the total value of the properties in issue is only P16,500 pesos. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent dismissing the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in granting the motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Ratio:
Yes. Jurisdiction of courts is granted by the Constitution and pertinent laws. Jurisdiction of RTCs, as may be relevant to the instant petition, is provided in Sec. 19 of BP 129.
Issue:
Whether the action filed by petitioners is one involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein or one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Ratio:
The Court rules that the complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. In this regard, the Court, in Russell v. Vestil, wrote 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 RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim." But 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, hence, are incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The April 25, 2013 and July 3, 2013 Orders of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. (1798)-021 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 32 in Lupon, Davao Oriental is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch in resolving Civil Case No. (1798)-021.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SOURCE: PALS 2016 (Prepared by: Dean Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis and the students of Lyceum of the Philippines University)
G.R. No. 208232, March 10, 2014
Facts:
Alfredo R. Bautista (Bautista), petitioner’s predecessor, inherited in 1983 a free-patent land located in Davao Oriental and covered by OCT No. (1572) P-6144.A few years later, he subdivided the property and sold it to several vendees, herein respondents, via a notarized deed of absolute sale dated May 30, 1991. Two months later, OCT No.(1572) P-6144 was canceled and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in favor of the vendees.
On August 1994, Bautista filed a complaint for repurchase against respondents before the RTC, anchoring his cause of action on Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141, otherwise known as the “Public Land Act,” which reads:
“SECTION 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance.”
During the pendency of the action, Bautista died and was substituted by petitioner, Efipania. Respondents, Sps. Lindo entered into a compromise agreement with petitioners, whereby they agree to cede to Epifania 3,230 sq.m..portion of the property as well as to waive, abandon, surrender, and withdraw all claims and counterclaims against each other. RTC approve the compromise agreement on January 2011.
Other respondents, filed a Motion to Dismissed on February 2013 alleging lack of jurisdiction of the RTC on the ground that the complaint failed to state the value of the property sought to be recovered and alleges that the total value of the properties in issue is only P16,500 pesos. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent dismissing the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in granting the motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Ratio:
Yes. Jurisdiction of courts is granted by the Constitution and pertinent laws. Jurisdiction of RTCs, as may be relevant to the instant petition, is provided in Sec. 19 of BP 129.
Issue:
Whether the action filed by petitioners is one involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein or one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Ratio:
The Court rules that the complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. In this regard, the Court, in Russell v. Vestil, wrote 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 RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim." But 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, hence, are incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The April 25, 2013 and July 3, 2013 Orders of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. (1798)-021 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 32 in Lupon, Davao Oriental is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch in resolving Civil Case No. (1798)-021.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SOURCE: PALS 2016 (Prepared by: Dean Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis and the students of Lyceum of the Philippines University)
No comments:
Post a Comment