Professional Documents
Culture Documents
20 Tacay V RTC of Tagum
20 Tacay V RTC of Tagum
*
G.R. Nos. 88075-77. December 20, 1989.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
_______________
* EN BANC.
434
jurisdiction inter alia over “all civil actions which involve the title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts.” The rule applies regardless of the value of
the real property involved, whether it be worth more than
P20,000.00 or not, infra. The rule also applies even where the
complaint involving realty also prays for an award of damages;
the amount of those damages would be immaterial to the question
of the Court’s jurisdiction. The rule is unlike that in other cases—
e.g., actions simply for recovery of money or of personal property,
or actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction—in which the
amount claimed, or the value of the personal property, is
determinative of jurisdiction; i.e., the value of the personal
property or the amount claimed should exceed twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) in order to be cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Filing Fees; Circular No. 7ofthe
Supreme Court cannot be invoked as authority for dismissal of the
actions at bar; Circular was avowedly inspired by the Manchester
ruling.—Circular No. 7 of this Court, dated March 24, 1988,
cannot thus be invoked, as the petitioner does, as authority for
the dismissal of the actions at bar. That circular, avowedly
inspired by the doctrine laid down in Manchester Development
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 562 (May 7, 1987), has
but limited application to said actions, as shall presently be
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
discussed. Moreover, the rules therein laid down have since been
clarified and amplified by the Court’s subsequent decision in Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, et al., G.R. Nos..79937-
38, February 13, 1989.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Purpose of Circular No. 7.—
Circular No. 7 was aimed at the practice of certain parties who
omit from the prayer of their complaints “any specification of the
amount of damages,” the omission being “clearly intended for no
other purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees
if not to mislead the docket clerk, in the assessment of the filing
fee.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Requirement in Circular
No. 7 that complaints, etc. should specify the amount of damages
being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the
prayer has not been altered; New rule that trial courts are now
authorized to allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time
but not beyond the prescriptive or reglementary period; For
damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar
pleading, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien
435
436
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
of the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time
as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in
in the meantime. But where—as in the case at bar—the fees
prescribed for an action involving real property have been paid,
but the amounts of certain of the related damages (actual, moral
and nominal) being demanded are unspecified, the action may not
be dismissed. The Court undeniably has jurisdiction over the
action involving the real property, acquiring it upon the filing of
the complaint or similar pleading and payment of the prescribed
fee. And it is not divested of that authority by the circumstance
that it may not have acquired jurisdiction over the accompanying
claims for damages because of lack of specification thereof. What
should be done is simply to expunge those claims for damages as
to which no amounts are stated, which is what the respondent
Courts did, or allow, on motion, a reasonable time for the
amendment of the complaints so as to allege the precise amount of
each item of damages and accept payment of the requisite fees
therefor within the relevant prescriptive period.
RESOLUTION
NARVASA, J.:
1
In the Regional Trial Court at Tagum, Davao del Norte,
three
_______________
437
2
(3) actions for recovery of possession (acciones publicianas )
were separately instituted by Godofredo Pineda against
three (3) defendants, docketed as follows:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
and
_______________
438
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
_______________
5 See Order dated Feb. 27, 1989 of Judge Fernandez in Civil Case No.
2211, at p. 56 of the rollo.
6 Annexes G, H, and I, petition.
7 Annex J, petition; His Honor’s order is dated Jan. 13, 1989.
8 Annex L, petition; the order is dated March 8, 1989.
9 Annexes M and N, petition.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
439
_______________
10 The argument that the complaints were also fatally defective for
failure to state the assessed value of the land involved in the suits, is not
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
440
however, that the actions are not basically for the recovery
of sums of money. They are principally for recovery of
possession of real property, in the nature of an accion
publiciana. Determinative of the court’s jurisdiction in this
type of actions is the nature thereof, not the amount of the
damages allegedly arising from or connected with the issue
of title or possession, and regardless of the value of the
property. Quite obviously, an action for recovery of
possession of real property (such as 12
an accion plenaria de
posesion) or the title thereof, or for partition or
condemnation13of, or the foreclosure of a mortgage on, said
real property —in other words, a real action—may be
commenced and prosecuted without an accompanying claim
for actual, moral, nominal or exemplary damages; and such
an action would fall within the exclusive, original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides that Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
inter alia over “all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal 14
Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.” The rule
applies regardless of the value of the real property
involved, whether it be worth more than P20,000.00 or not,
infra. The rule also applies even where the complaint
involving realty also prays for an award of damages; the
amount of those damages would be immaterial to the
question of the Court’s jurisdiction. The rule is unlike that
in other cases—e.g., actions
15
simply for recovery of money or
of personal 16property, or actions in admiralty17and maritime
jurisdiction —in which the amount claimed, or the value
of the personal property, is determinative of jurisdiction;
i.e., the value of the personal property or the amount
claimed should exceed twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
in order to be cognizable by the Regional Trial
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
12 Accion reivindicatoria.
13 SEE Rules 67, 68 and 69, Rules of Court.
14 Sec. 19 (2).
15 Sec. 19 (8).
16 Sec. 19 (3).
17 Exclusive of interests and costs.
441
Court.
Circular No. 7 of this Court, dated March 24, 1988,
cannot thus be invoked, as the petitioner does, as authority
for the dismissal of the actions at bar. That circular,
avowedly inspired by the doctrine laid down in Manchester
Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA
562 (May 7, 1987), has but limited application to said
actions, as shall presently be discussed. Moreover, the rules
therein laid down have since been clarified and amplified
by the Court’s subsequent decision in Sun Insurance Office,
Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, et al., G.R. Nos. 79937-38,
February 13, 1989.
Circular No. 7 was aimed at the practice of certain
parties who omit from the prayer of their complaints “any
specification of the amount of damages,” the omission being
“clearly intended for no other purposes than to evade the
payment of the correct filing fees if not to mislead the
docket clerk, in the assessment of the filing fee.” The
following rules were therefore set down:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 180
442
_______________
443
_______________
444
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——
445
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9c707a71c4f3ade003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14