G.R. No.

202448 Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss11 on the ground, among others, that the
RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Petitioner posited that based
JOSEPH O. REGALADO, Petitioner, on the allegations in the Complaint, the action involved recovery of physical possession
vs. of the properties in dispute; said Complaint was also filed within one year from the date
EMMA DE LA RAMA VDA. DE LA PENA,1 JESUSA2 DE LA PENA, JOHNNY DE LA PENA, the parties had a confrontation before the Barangay; and thus, the case was one for
JOHANNA DE LA PENA, JOSE DE LA PENA, JESSICA DE LA PENA, and JAIME ANTONIO Ejectment and must be filed with the proper Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
DE LA PENA, Respondents.
In their Reply,12 respondents alleged that the waiver of rights in favor of Jaime was
DECISION conditioned on the payment of their ₱6.7 million loan with the Republic Planters Bank
(RPB) and Philippine National Bank (PNB); and, in case the subject properties would be
sold, its proceeds shall be equally distributed to respondents. They further stated that
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
such waiver bestowed rights over the properties solely upon Jaime. They added that the
subsequent waiver executed by Jaime to petitioner should have been with conformity of
This Petition for Review· on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the May 28, 2012 the banks where the properties were mortgaged; and conditioned on the payment of
Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02994, which affirmed the the ₱6.7 million loan. They pointed out that neither Jaime nor petitioner paid any
January 20, 2009 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RIC) of Bacolod City, Branch 42 in amount to RPB or PNB; and as a result, the waivers of rights in favor of Jaime, and later
Civil Case No. 98-10187 for."Recovery of Possession and Damages with Injunction." to petitioner, were void.

Factual Antecedents Subsequently, in their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,13 respondents contended that

the RTC had jurisdiction over the case because their demand for petitioner to vacate the
Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, Jose, Jessica, and Jaime Antonio (Jaime), all surnamed properties was made during the crop year 1995- 1996, which was earlier than the
de la Pena (respondents), are the registered owners of two parcels of land with a total refe1Tal of the matter to Barangay Cansilayan.
area of 44 hectares located in Murcia, Negros Occidental. These properties are referred
to as Lot Nos. 138-D and 138-S, and are respectively covered by Transfer Certificates of On July 31, 2000, the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. It held that it had jurisdiction
Title No. T-103187 and T-1031895 (subject properties). over the case because the area of the subject properties was 44 hectares, more or less,
and "it is safe to presume that the value of the same is more than ₱20,000.00."14
Purportedly, in 1994, without the knowledge and consent of respondents, Joseph
Regalado (petitioner) entered, took possession of, and planted sugar cane on the Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
subject properties without paying rent to respondents. In the crop year 1995-1996,
respondents discovered such illegal entry, which prompted them to verbally demand
On January 20, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering petitioner to turn over the
from petitioner to vacate the properties but to no avail.6
subject properties to respondents and to pay them ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees.
Later, the parties appeared before the Barangay Office of Cansilayan, Murcia, Negros
The RTC ratiocinated that the waiver of rights executed by Jaime to petitioner was
Occidental but failed to arrive at any amicable settlement. On September 29, 1997,
coupled with a consideration. However, petitioner failed to prove that he paid a
the Lupon Tagapamayapa of said Barangay issued a Certificate to File Action;7 and, on
consideration for such a waiver; as such, petitioner was not entitled to possess the
March 9, 1998, respondents filed a Complaint8 for recovery of possession and damages
subject properties.
with injunction against petitioner.

Both parties appealed to the CA.

In his Answer,9 petitioner countered that in 1994, Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, and
Jessica executed their separate Waivers of Undivided Share of Lands renouncing their
rights and interests over the subject properties in favor of Jaime. In turn, Jaime On one hand, petitioner reiterated that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. He
subsequently waived his rights and interests on the same properties to also maintained that respondents already waived their shares and rights over the
petitioner.10 Petitioner claimed that respondents did not attempt to enter the properties properties to Jaime, who, in turn, renounced his rights to petitioner.
as they already intentionally relinquished their interests thereon.
On the other hand, respondents assailed the RTC Decision in so far as it failed to award Moreover, petitioner argues that Jaime's waiver in his (petitioner's) favor was coupled
them damages as a result of petitioner's purported illegal entry and possession of the with the following considerations: 1) ₱400,000.00 cash; 2) a car worth ₱350,000.00; and
subject properties. 3) a convenience store worth ₱1,500,000.00. He adds that the delivery of the properties
to him confirms that he (petitioner) gave said considerations to Jaime.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Later, in his Manifestation and Motion,16 petitioner points out that although the body of
On May 28, 2012, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision the assailed CA Decision made reference to the January 20, 2009 RTC Decision, its
dispositive portion pertained to a different case, to wit:
The CA dismissed respondents' appeal because they did not establish entitlement to
damages. It likewise dismissed the appeal interposed by petitioner for failing to WHEREFORE, premises considered, the August 29, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial
establish that he gave any consideration in relation to Jaime's waiver of rights in his Court, Branch 10 in Civil Case No. CEB- 30866 is AFFIRMED.
(petitioner) favor.
Costs against both appellants.
In addition, the CA ruled that the RTC had jurisdiction over this case considering that the
parties stipulated on the jurisdiction of the RTC but also because the assessed value of SO ORDERED.17 (Underlining ours)
the subject properties is presumed to have exceeded ₱20,000.00.
Consequently, petitioner prays that the dispositive portion of the CA Decision be
Issues rectified to refer to the actual case subject of the appeal.

Hence, petitioner filed this Petition raising the issues as follows: Respondents' Arguments

I. DID THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF On the other hand, respondents contend that the CA did not commit any reversible
THE CASE? error in rendering the assailed Decision. They insist that petitioner's contentions are
unsubstantial to merit consideration.
II. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN RULING THAT PETITIONER SHOULD RETURN
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES SUBJECT OF THIS CASE TO THE RESPONDENTS? Our Ruling

III. SHOULD THE PETITIONER BE AWARDED DAMAGES?15 The Court grants the Petition.

Petitioner's Arguments In our jurisdiction, there are three kinds of action for recovery of possession of real
property: 1) ejectment (either for un]awful detainer or forcible entry) in case the
Petitioner insists that respondents filed their Complaint for recovery of physical dispossession has lasted for not more than a year; 2) accion publiciona or a plenary
possession of the subject properties on March 9, 1998 or within one year from the date action for recovery of real right of possession when dispossession has lasted for more
the parties had their confrontation before the Barangay of Cansilayan (September 29, than one year; and, 3) accion reinvindicatoria or an action for recovery of ownership.18
1997). As such, he maintains that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case.
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691),19 the proper Metropolitan Trial Court (Me
Petitioner also posits that even granting that this action is considered a plenary action to TC), MTC, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) has exclusive original jurisdiction over
recover right of possession, the RTC still had no jurisdiction because the tax declarations ejectment cases. Moreover, jurisdiction of the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC shall include civil
of the properties were not submitted, and consequently, it cannot be determined actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein where
whether it is the MTC or RTC which has jurisdiction over the case. the assessed value of the property does not exceed ₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro
Manila),20 On the other hand, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions
involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein in case the
assessed value of the property exceeds ₱20,000.00(or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila).21
Jurisdiction is thus determined not only by the type of action filed but also by the 7. That because of the refusal of the defendant to allow the plaintiffs to take possession
assessed value of the property. It follows that in accion and control of their own property, plaintiffs were constrained to seek the aid of counsel
publiciana and reinvindicatoria, the assessed value of the real property is a jurisdictional and consequently thereto this complaint.24
element to determine the court that can take cognizance of the action.22
Under Section 1,25 Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, there are special jurisdictional facts that
In this case, petitioner consistently insists that a) the Complaint is one for ejectment; or must be set forth in the complaint to make a case for ejectment, which, as mentioned,
b) if the same is deemed an accion publiciana, the RTC still lacks jurisdiction as the may either be for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
assessed value of the subject properties was not alleged in the Complaint.
In particular, a complaint for forcible entry must allege the plaintiff's prior physical
As such, to ascertain the proper court that has jurisdiction, reference must be made to possession of the property; the fact that plaintiff was deprived of its possession by force,
the averments in the complaint, and the law in force at the commencement of the intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and the action must be filed within one year
action. This is because only the facts alleged in the complaint can be the basis for from the time the owner or the legal possessor learned of their dispossession.26 On the
determining the nature of the action, and the court that can take cognizance of the other hand, a complaint for unlawful detainer must state that the defendant is
case.23 unlawfully withholding possession of the real property after the expiration or
termination of his or her right to possess it; and the complaint is filed within a year from
Here, the pertinent portions of the Complaint read: the time such possession became unlawful.27

2. That plaintiffs [herein respondents] are the owners of two (2) parcels of land known In the instant case, respondents only averred in the Complaint that they are registered
as Lot. No. 138-D with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-103187 and Lot No. 138-S with owners of the subject properties, and petitioner unlawfully deprived them of its
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-103189, with a total land area of 44 hectares, all of possession. They did not assert therein that they were dispossessed of the subject
Murcia Cadastre xxx; properties under the circumstances necessary to make a case of either forcible entry or
unlawful detainer. Hence, in the absence of the required jurisdictional facts, the instant
action is not one for ejectment.28
3. That sometime in 1994, without the knowledge and consent of herein plaintiffs, the
defendant [herein petitioner] entered into and took possession of the aforementioned
parcels of land and planted sugar cane without paying any rental to herein plaintiffs; Nonetheless, the Court agrees with petitioner that while this case is an accion
publiciana, there was no clear showing that the RTC has jurisdiction over it.1âwphi1
4. That plaintiffs discovered the illegal entry and occupation by the defendant of the
aforementioned property and demand to vacate the property was made orally to the Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by law. It cannot be presumed
defendant sometime in 1995-96 crop year but defendant refused and still refuses to or implied, and must distinctly appear from the law. It cannot also be vested upon a
vacate the premises; court by the agreement of the parties; or by the court's erroneous belief that it had
jurisdiction over a case.29
5. A confrontation before the Brgy. Kapitan of Brgy[.] Cansilayan, Murcia, Negros
Occidental, and before the Pangkat Tagapag[ka]sundo between herein parties where To emphasize, when respondents filed the Complaint in 1998, RA 7691 was already in
plaintiffs again demanded orally for the defendant to vacate the premises but defendant force as it was approved on March 25, 1994 and took effect on April 15, 1994.30 As such,
refused to vacate the premises and no amicable settlement was reached during the it is necessary that the assessed value of the subject properties, or its adjacent lots (if
confrontation of the parties, thus a certificate to file action has been issued x x x; the properties are not declared for taxation purposes)31 be alleged to ascertain which
court has jurisdiction over the case.32
6. That plaintiffs were barred by the defendant from entering the prope1iy of the
plaintiffs for the latter to take possession of the same and plant sugar cane thereby As argued by petitioner, the Complaint failed to specify the assessed value of the subject
causing damages to the plaintiffs; properties. Thus, it is unclear if the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction, or the MTC has
jurisdiction, over respondents' action.
Also worth noting is the fact that the RTC took cognizance of the complaint only on the CERTIFICATION
presumption that the assessed value of the proper exceeds ₱20,000.00. Aside from
affirming such presumption, the CA, in turn, declared that the RTC had jurisdiction Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
because the parties stipulated on it. However, as discussed, jurisdiction cam1ot be in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
presumed. It cannot be conferred by the agreement of the parties, or on the erroneous the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
belief of the court that it had jurisdiction over a case.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Indeed, in the absence of any allegation in the Complaint of the assessed value of the Chief Justice
subject properties, it cannot be determined which court has exclusive original
jurisdiction over respondents' Complaint. Courts cannot simply take judicial notice of
the assessed value, or even market value of the land.33 Resultantly, for lack of
jurisdiction, all proceedings before the RTC, including its decision, are void,34 which
makes it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by petitioner.

As a final note, while the modification of the clerical error in the dispositive portion of
the CA Decision is rendered irrelevant by the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, the Com1, nonetheless, reminds the CA and all other courts to be more
circumspect in rendering their decision, including ensuring the correctness of the
information in their issuances. After all, courts are duty-bound to render accurate
decisions, or that which clearly and distinctly express the facts and the law on which the
same is based.35

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The May 28, 2012 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02994 is REVERSEDand SETASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint
in Civil Case No. 98-10187 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM

Associate Justice