Genesis Investment

Genesis Investment, Inc.
v Heirs of Ceferino Ebarasabal

GR No. 181622, November 20, 2013
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
 Respondents filed against petitioners a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of
Shares, Partition, Damages and Attorney’s Fees.
 The Complaint was filed with the RTC
 Petitioners filed a MD contending, among others, that the RTC has no jurisdiction to try the case on the
ground that, as the case involves title to or possession of real property or any interest therein and
since the assessed value of the subject property does not exceed P20,000 (the same being only
P11,990), the action falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
 RTC granted the petitioners’ MD holding that:
o X X X And while the prayer of the plaintiffs for the annulment of documents qualified the case as
one incapable of pecuniary estimation thus, rendering it cognizable supposedly by the second
level courts but considering that Republic Act No. 7691 expressly provides to cover "all civil
actions" which phrase understandably is to include those incapable of pecuniary estimation, like
the case at bar, this Court is of the view that said law really finds application here more so that
the same case also "involves title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein." For
being so, the assessed value of the real property involved is determinative of which court has
jurisdiction over the case. And the plaintiffs admitting that the assessed value of the litigated
area is less than ₱20,000.00, the defendants are correct in arguing that the case is beyond this
Court's jurisdiction.
 Respondents file a Partial MR arguing that their complaint consists of several causes of action, which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and, as such falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
 RTC issued an Order granting the Partial MR.
 RTC agreed that the main case or primary relief prayed for is for the declaration of nullity or annulment of
documents which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Other claims, merely incidental.
 Petitioners filed an MR: DENIED
 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA: DISMISSED
 CA held that the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction
of RTC considering the main purpose of the action which is to declare null and void the documents
assailed therein.
 Petitioners filed MR: denied
 Hence, this petition for review
Issue/s:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case
Ruling:
Yes. It is true that one of the causes of action of respondents pertains to the title, possession and interest of each
of the contending parties over the contested property, the assessed value of which falls within the jurisdiction of
the MTC. However, a complete reading of the complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of
the suit, the allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is within the jurisdiction of the
RTC.
As stated above, it is clear from the records that respondents' complaint was for "Declaration of Nullity of
Documents, Recovery of Shares, Partition, Damages and Attorney's Fees." In filing their Complaint with the
RTC, respondents sought to recover ownership and possession of their shares in the disputed parcel of land by
questioning the due execution and validity of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale as well as the
Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between some of their co-heirs and herein petitioners. Aside from
praying that the RTC render judgment declaring as null and void the said Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with
Sale and Memorandum of Agreement, respondents likewise sought the following: (1) nullification of the Tax
Declarations subsequently issued in the name of petitioner Cebu Jaya Realty, Inc.; (2) partition of the property in
litigation; (3) reconveyance of their respective shares; and (3) payment of moral and exemplary damages, as well
as attorney's fees, plus appearance fees.
Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which comprehends more than the issue of partition of or
recovery of shares or interest over the real property in question but includes an action for declaration of nullity of
contracts and documents which is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
As cited by the CA, this Court, in the case of Singson v. Isabela Sawmill, held 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 by courts
of first instance [now Regional Trial Courts].
Moreover, it is provided under Section 5 (c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court that where the causes of action
are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein. Thus, as shown above, respondents complaint clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the
RTC.

Genesis Investment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genesis Investment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genesis Investment, Inc.

v Heirs of Ceferino Ebarasabal

You might also like